In the spirit of the season and renewal.... Here we go again. I will be posting IB paper 3 prompts from previous test sessions to help you begin focusing on the types of questions IB may ask come next May. I will aim to have these follow what we currently covering in class so that it will hopefully also serve as a review and focus piece for the types of historical knowledge you will need for the test.
I will have these posted every two weeks and the required response for you is to write an original post in reply to the prompt and then to offer at least on constructive critique to a peer. So in the end you should have a minimum of two postings for each blog prompt. I will be checking for completion and appropriate responses and will offer periodic feedback as well-- both randomly and specifically with a request from you for special attention. Dead line for on time submissions will be two weeks from my original posting.
Season II - Prompt 1:
From the 2003 May test --
What common factors caused the 1848/49 revolutions in Europe to fail?
There were many factors that added to the failing of the revolutions in 1848 and 1849. These factors stem from political differences within bands of people and lack of nationalism. The nationalism is theoretically caused the revolutions to take place, the countries involved were not happy with the way they were being treated, but the nationalistic quality of it was that every one banded together to fight it. The revolutions of 1848 failed because those involved were not fully prepared. They were trying to fight a larger government and it really hindered their ability to fight strongly and fight for a long time. They were brought down by the governments and the regime did not change, which was unfortunate for the revolutionaries.
ReplyDeleteThose are two solid points that you made but it wasn't very clear to me what the lack of nationalism was caused by. Maybe you could have explained why banding together to fight the regime by itself doesn't constitute a nationalistic movement. Your second point about the size of regime or government that the revolutionaries were up against was good and had good support.
DeleteIn the majority of Europe revolutions such as those that occurred during 1848 were completely unparalleled. Never before were the underdogs able to rise above and gain attention from those in power quite like they did during this series of revolutions. And in a way it was this very factor that caused many of them to fail. With the exception of a few major states such as Italy or Germany the majority of the rebellions were rather unorganized and far too ramshackle to establish much of a control. Even when these revolutionaries were able to gain power it was difficult for them to keep it. For instance, in most of France's many revolutions the new government almost seemed surprised to be in power and thus were not extremely successful and fell relatively quickly. Thus, many of the rebellious groups of the Revolutions of 1848 were not organized enough to hold the power they soon found themselves possessing.
ReplyDeleteI think you had an insightful answer, and I definitely agree that part of the reason why the revolutions failed was due to the lack of organization in the rebellious groups. When thinking of the unorganized groups, do you think there were unorganized because there was no true leader, or because the rebellious groups differed too much in what they wanted, or something else?
DeleteI really like this paragraph Madison. I agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but I was wondering what made these groups unorganized and how did it affect them aside from the power thing?
DeleteThe 1848 revolutions were never going to succeed. Born from a place of reactionary action, the revolutions were immediate responses to the Congress of Vienna. The revolutions came from the sense of Risorgimiento Nationalism, which, while powerful, are not successful in maintaining the vigor needed for a complete revolt. They were disorganized, being driven by people across the country, yet often with different goals. There was the most obvious division: the ruling class against the oppressed. Yet the divisions within the groups are what ultimately lead to the destruction of the revolutions. The poor harvest created problems for the farmers, and ultimately the merchants, yet the differences in overall desires created a division. The farmers needed support, while the merchants required an over turn. In France, national workshops were created to give work to the lower classes, yet they did nothing to support the farmers. The lower classes all agreed on the need for a revolution, but were at odds on how exactly it should be accomplished. This division was ultimately the demise of the revolutions of 1848.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very thorough answer that I believe answered the question well. You also included lots of important details that helped explain the reasons why the revolutions of 1848 failed.
DeleteThis answer seems very well thought and well-laid out. However, I did stumble a little when you started writing about support for farmers - are you trying to say that economic issues played a key role in the failure of the revolutions? I'm a bit confused here.
DeleteI think that your response was well thought out, and your details were really supportive. However, I was confused in your beginning because I did not consider these revolutions to be immediate responses to the Congress of Vienna, because 30 years passed between the two events. I thought that this amount of time allowed the lower class to form a stronger sense of Risorgimento Nationalism. I did like how you discredited Risorgimento Nationalism though.
DeleteYour answer is very well thought out and detailed, and brings in multiple points that are very solid.
DeleteYour analysis of the factors that caused the revolutions to fail is very detailed and provides important insight on the various causes and effects of the issues that caused the revolutions to fail.
DeleteThis was a good answer and I agree when you said lack of unity caused the demise of the revolutions. There was alot of support for the argument.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 were bound to fail. From the beginning there was no man power behind the whole operation. Although they had the will power, they were disorganized and sloppy. Soon different groups of people started to have different goals which ultimately caused a rift in the revolutionaries. By August of 1848 almost all of the revolts were stamped out by the governments of Europe. These revolutionary efforts could have been a major turning point in the history of Europe and instead it failed.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with you and just had some questions. Were there any countries with enough power or good ortganization? what made their revolution more effective than other disorganized revolutions? and specifically what factors determined if a revolution was disorganized and sloppy?
DeleteI understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that I agree with the fact that "there was no man power behind the whole operation". They were disorganized like you said, but their power in numbers was one of their strong points in my opinion. But I definitely agree with the fact that they failed due to disorganization and their potential prior to failure.
DeleteThere were many common factors that made the Revolutions of 1848 end in failure. Not enough people agreed on how the government should have been run at the time. Countries like Germany and France, for example, had several groups of people with conflicting ideas on what specific changes should have been made and how they should be made. Some groups dominated others, as seen in France where republicans overpowered socialists. As a result of these conflicting ideas, the progress that could be made in the countries seeking change was extremely limited. Because of the numerous groups with conflicting ideas, there was also no one to lead or organize these movements. This limited the influence the revolutionaries had on their rulers, and therefore, the disorganization of these revolutions led to their failures.
ReplyDeleteyou have really good ideas but I think you need more specifics, what specifically seperated these countries in their ideas? what were some of the conflicting ideas?
DeleteIt seems that many of us who have posted so far (4/1/13) have referred to the groups of people and their differing goals, but I like how you specified and gave examples of how this was evident in the revolutions. I'm just looking to clarify, but had we had to write this out as an essay, I'm assuming you probably wouldn't have mentioned the Milanese Revolution?
DeleteI agree with you that there was disorganization throughout the revolutionary movements, and all of the points that you made here where highly valid. My only comment is that your analysis makes it seem that there is only one side to the failures of the revolutions. I would love to read more about your take on the revolutions' failures through a multidimensional lens.
DeleteThe point regarding the division within the revolutionaries is interesting and well thought out and supported. However, were these the only common causes for the failure of the revolutions, or could the existing governments have also played an important role?
DeleteI like the fact that you take a look at the situation as a whole, the break it down(somewhat) into many individual views. This seems to be a well constructed and well thought out perspective.
DeleteThe tumultuous revolutions of 1848 caused massive conflict all across Europe. Very few, if any, of the Revolutions of 1848 can be seen as truly successful.
ReplyDeleteBorn from the Risorgimento Nationalism that swept across the continent, the revolutions came from a 'pure' place. But, as it were, purity fails to be truly successful when it comes to forming nations. Only Germany and Italy, backed by foreign aid, were truly able to successfully revolt. But they had what other revolutions lacked: a similar enough cultural back ground with other regions to unite and overthrow the powers that be, and they also had the aid of countries such as Prussia and France.
On the other hand, failed revolutions such as those in Spain and Austria were often unpopular with ruling powers in other countries. After the Congress of Vienna, treaties and alliances were stronger than ever, and attempting to overthrow governments now had to face the equivalent of two or more governments.
Many also faced opposing revolutionary ideals. Similar to the opposing parties in the first French Revolution, these parties were not able to align themselves during the Revolutions of 1848, and could not therefore form a new, cohesive, and powerful government.
These revolutions had leaders, but not enough force to propel them into success. They also could not 'rally the troops' enough. They did not have enough civilian backing, nor civilian fire arms to create a reputable force.
The revolutions of 1848 failed to succeed due to their lack of foreign aid, inability to unite under similar ideals, and their lack of strength.
I like what you said in paragraph number three about how if you were going to have to overthrow a government, it would be harder because you would have to face two or governments. I like that you said this because I never really saw it this way and I could have used this idea to help form another idea around Charles Tilly's third condition in his hypothesis about revolutions. This being that to have a revolution the government can't overthrow the revolutionaries. With the equivalent of two or more governments, this would become even more challenging for the revolutionaries.
DeleteGood answer, Meredith. You structured this very well, and you described all your ideas really clearly. I think your fourth paragraph might need a little more support to show why the countries weren't able to overthrow the old regimes and replace them with new governments.
DeleteThe European Revolutions of 1848 were all responses to the 1814 Congress of Vienna. There were numerous circumstances surrounding each of the individual revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Charles Tilly's paper "Does Modernization Breed Revolution?" argues that there are three necessary conditions and one facilitated condition for a successful revolution. Applying Tilly's hypothesis, the Revolutions of 1848 were largely unsuccessful for one reason; the necessary condition that the existing government is unable to suppress contrasting polities was absent. The fact that the government was able to retain power in most of these revolutions was due to the disorganization and inability of the opposing parties to join together to even significantly oppress the government. There was one major revolution, ended in 1849, that was successful, unlike the others. The main difference in the Milan Revolution was that the Milanese had a strong civilian army, formed under the interim government of Gabrio Casati, an example reaffirms Tilly's argument. The lack of sufficient, organized civilian military power and the inability of contrasting polities to coalesce under common beliefs was the poor combination that resulted in the overall failure of the Revolutions of 1848.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you brought up Tilly's paper because I did as well. I believe the same thing that you do in that condition number three was not upheld because the government was able to take the revolutionaries down. However, the reason that this happened was because condition number two was not upheld either. This is because the population support had so many different aims instead of one so they did not all work together.
DeleteI think you constructed your answer quite well. Incorporating Tilly's thesis into your argument was an effective way to both bring in outside evidence and to solidify your response.
DeleteYou did a good job using a text (Tilly's "Does Modernization Breed Revolution) to support your arguments. It provides an interesting perspective on the reasons that the revolutions failed.
DeleteI think you presented a good argument when you used text support from Tilly's paper.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 failed because the division between the groups involved with the revolution. The revolutionaries succeeded in their aim but this success could not continue for long. They failed to come to a consensus on the question of the future form of government in their countries.For example, the republicans and the socialists of France united against Louis Philippe and removed him from power. However after the proclamation of the Second Republic in France, these two parties could not remain united. They couldn't decide whether they wanted change in the political system of the country or bring on a social change. The republicans said that they had accomplished what they had set out to do with the downfall of Louis Philippe and establishing a democratic government in the country. The socialists wanted to create a change in the social setup with replubican government. As a result of this confusion, Napoleon Bonaparte stepped in and removed the replubican form of government and established his monarchy.
ReplyDeleteThinh, excellent work! I think your examples from France's revolution do a good job showing what happened across Europe during this time.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 aimed to try to overthrow the existing governments within the nation that the revolution was happening in. According to the hypothesis about revolution by Charles Tilly, it is necessary to have three things to have a successful revolution. These three things being that there must be contenders against, in this case, the different governments. The Revolutions of 1848 had this necessary condition. However, the next condition is where these revolutions begin to fall. There was not enough support by the population making condition number three impossible as well. Condition number three being that the government would be incapable to suppress the contenders. Because there was not enough population support the governments were able to overthrow the revolution making the unsuccessful. For example, take the revolution in France. The reason that the revolution had failed was because the revolutionaries had different aims than each other instead of uniting for the same cause. The bourgeois revolutionaries led by Alphonse de Lamartine and A. Marie had very different aims than the radical revolutionaries led by Louis Blanc spread themselves apart and was the reason the revolutions failed. This was the same format for failure that all of the other revolutions had as well.
ReplyDeleteI like how you referenced Charles Tilly's paper, probably because I did as well. You elaborated more on Tilly's second necessary condition, which I'd forgotten to do. I think both were largely responsible for the downfall of many of the revolutions, and this would be a great way to open up an expand on their failure.
DeleteI think that this is a very strong paragraph, but you might not need to focus on the specifics of the French Revolution when talking about these revolutions, however using the french revolution was a good idea. I also like the use of Charles Tilly I think that adds a lot of strength to your argument.
DeleteThis is very well written and I think your outside information (Charles Tilly reference, French Revolution comparison)increase your credibility and strengthen your argument significantly. If anything, remember that this is an introduction paragraph so going into detail on specifics is not as necessary, but mentioning them does give you good openings to delve deeper into as your paper continues.
DeleteWhile many factors caused the revolutions of 1848 to fail, a common factor among all the failed revolutions was the lack of unity and lack of leadership. The majority of people across Europe were in favor of Risorgimento nationalism, but among the group of people in favor of a revolution were a variety of economic levels that affected what each person wanted. There were merchants, industrial workers, farmers, etc., all with varied economic levels, each wanting new laws to benefit them. Another problem that arose was the lack of leadership. There was no leader that was able to unite all the groups and create a huge revolution. In many cases farmers revolted alone and industrial workers united alone, but there were few cases where all the groups were able to unite and revolt together.
ReplyDeleteI think that this answer was very thorough in focusing in on one specific common factor. You were able to effectively tie together many reasons the revolutions failed with one broad spectrum of the differences in social classes which made it easier for me to understand.
DeleteThe way you explain this reason is very effective and I agree with the lack of unity. It is like if the working class of Chicago tried to overthrow the city but half were Cubs fans and half were White Sox fans, they might have a large number or rebels but they would not want to work together.
DeleteI think your argument overall is well constructed. However, I believe it is a vague blanket statement to say that Risorgimiento nationalism could have worked because it was supported by the majority of the population. While this may be true, Risorgimiento nationalism has less to do with overall popularity as it does with secular popularity within specific populations.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848/1849 were products of the discord that existed between European peoples and their respective governments. The governments were largely reactionary in nature and sought to suppress the actions of the discontented citizenry. This discontent, stemming from the increasing popularity of liberal ideals and coupled with poor harvests and widespread economic downturn, propelled the people to action. However, a basic lack of organization was common amongst the revolutions and essentially prevented lasting success (if any at all). The unfocused and weak forces driving each rebellion were ill-suited for action against the governments in question, many of which were more than capable of quashing the people’s efforts. Revolutionary success was also checked by the conservatives’ tendency to side with the reactionary governments once they felt the radicals had gone too far; stability and familiarity were favored over uncertainty, thus preventing any major governmental overturn.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think you did a good job answering the prompt. The paragraph was well structured and there good use of vocabulary. I liked that you included the factors that led to the Revolutions of 1848 as well; I think it added to the overall understanding of the prompt.
DeleteThis is a really well written paragraph and I think you really understood the subject and were able to show that through your writing. Like Emily S. said, including the factors that led to Revolutions gives the reader even more of an insight and backround into why they failed.
DeleteThis Comment is from Scarlett Del Giudice Boyer.
DeleteThe two common factors in contributing to the failure of the revolutions of 1848 was cultural and language barriers and ineffective leadership. While many of the revolution united under a similar cause to rebel against the current goverment or eforcements of the government (such as a raise in tax seen from the swiss revolution in 1848), there was no strong leadership to effectivly use the numbers that particpated in these revolutions. Demonstartions in paris in respose to the goverment's refusal to allow meetings to dicuss reform errupted into chaos and around forty died, once news reached the outside cities in France violence errupted again without clear communication of purpose or organization. The revolutions also failed due to the language barrier, with revolutions spanning all across europe differences in purpose and language made the revolutions of 1848 as a whole jumbled and without clairty of an end goal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point you bring up with the cultural barrier because there are different cultures even within a single country and this does not make it very easy to unite as a working class to rebel and gain strength.
DeleteNice use of specific examples to help get your point across.
DeleteIf every part of the continent spoke the same language, would there even be need for revolution in the first place? Language is a major part in different cultures, so everybody spoke the same language would there still me major cultural differences between the different groups in the region?
The Revolutions of 1848 and 1849 were never destined to succeed because of some fundamental failures in the revolutionaries' planning. The first failure by this party was overestimating their own strength. The group assumed that when the ball started rolling, people would be extremely willing to jump in and support the cause even if they were not avid supporters from the start. This was obviously not the case as many of the revolutions had little support. The largest fundamental error in the mind's of the revolutionaries was the lack of a plan for after the successful overthrow of the current regime. After some success in the revolutions, many then found themselves wondering what to do with the struggling embryo of a nation and subsequently none of the revolutions were going to achieve success in the long run.
ReplyDeleteWhile you do bring up many intriguing points about how the failure was due to a failure in planning for the future success of the revolutions, I think that you should address how the nationalistic sense was a large factor in the revolutions and how this set the revolutions up for the unorganized fashion in which they were carried out.
DeleteI completely agree with the points you brought up discussing the failures of the revolution. It is always assumed that the main cause the revolution failed was a lack of funds and a lack of supplies, however a large part of it was not having the support that was required to really get a revolution started.
DeleteAlthough the revolutions of 1848 brought about major changes in the mindset of the people in Europe, they generally failed to achieve any of their goals and to bring on a new form of government. This failure was brought on by the chaotic state of Europe and the new ideas of revolution just beginning to reach the people. The French Revolution showed the rest of Europe that the governments could be overthrown but, there was never enough planning as to how to overthrow a government or who would take the power once the monarchies had fallen. There were so many smaller parties within each country or territory who had different ideals based on their current social status and wealth (property as well as money). The many opposing viewpoints as to how a revolution would occur are what caused the revolutions of 1848 to fail, had more people have joined together and formed and organized opposition then more governments might have been rearranged.
ReplyDeleteYour ideas are really good! I had thought about a lack of unity in the lower classes, but I had never thought about how that translated into a lack of planning and why that was a major reasons of the failures of the revolutions. I like how you thought about the fact that IF they did plan, then the government would be different.
DeleteErika, the points that you bring up are very insightful, and accurate. It is obvious that you know what you are talking about, and that you have a good idea about the revolutions of 1848, and you included how their governments might have been different if the circumstances were different.
DeleteThe revolutions that spread through Europe in 1848 and 1849 were the reaction to years of political discord and the discontent of the working class in various European nations. The majority of citizens in these countries were unhappy with the political leadership, economic conditions, and along with the strong push for nationalism that surged across Europe, the Revolutions of 1848 were inevitable. However, their failure was also almost assured from the very beginning. A main factor of the revolutions that contributed to their failure was that Nationalism instilled in the citizenry a strong desire for immediate change. While this did create a strong desire for reform, the spirit of the revolutions tapered off quickly and the universal support quickly deteriorated. Because of this, there weren't enough people behind the revolutions to really provide the support needed for large-scale change. Another factor that caused the revolutions to fail was that the revolutions involved citizens from every level of the social and economic classes. Because such a broad range of people were involved, there was little communication about what everyone wanted the revolutions to accomplish. The lack of communication between the rebels created an unorganized and disoriented revolutionary environment. The main goal of the governments of the various countries was, of course, to stamp out the revolutions, and this was relatively easy for most countries to accomplish as the rebels struggled to organize their respective rebellions. While the revolutions were undoubtedly inevitable due to the political and economic conditions of Europe, the revolutionary spirit was short lived and the necessary organization and communication needed for a successful revolution was never accomplished.
ReplyDeleteI like that you begin with an introduction to your thesis that adds to its understandability. I also thought the way in which you described the way in which the economic and class disparities lead to a lack of communication was clear and sensible. I was a little confused by your first reason, however. Why does nationalism make the spirit of revolutions taper off quickly? I think you need to support your thinking a little more here and maybe provide some examples for each reason to make your argument stronger. :)
DeleteMacauley, this is incredibly erudite. I like that you used multiple examples to support your argument with conviction.
DeleteAlthough this is a good response, I think that your argument could be enhanced by adding in a few specific examples. Such as in your point about lack of support. There were many differences in how (politically, or socially)countries were able to revolutionize, thus I think there should be some differentiation among your points. But good work as a whole.
DeleteThe factors that affected the failures of the Revolutions of 1848 were the leadership of the rebels, organization of the rebels, and the preparation of the current regimes. The leaders of the rebellions weren't qualified at times in managing the rebellion in terms of plans and organization of people and supplies. When the leader is horrible, the revolution wouldn't succeed. Organization was a factor because of the distance between the groups of rebels. 1 group in a city, another in the country. There would often be poor communication between the groups by distance that would cause disorganization and eventual failure. The last factor is the preparation made by the current regime. After France's revolution and following conquest of Europe caused major powers in Europe to take precautions to prevent anything similar happening. The rebels were simply out gunned in attempting a revolution. Those the major factors why the Revolutions of 1848 failed.
ReplyDeleteSeth, I believe the points could have been stated better, but I think you tackled every factor that contributed to the revolutions. Well done!
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 were a result of the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna divided Europe in hopes of equal power, which satisfied the upper class, but not the lower classes. Over 30 years, Risorgimento Nationalism grew in these lower classes, inspiring them to revolt. However, while Risorgimento Nationalism provided them with strong will to revolt, it did not give the lower classes the means to become victorious over the upper class. There was a common lack of leadership, unity, and a common goal. Although the lower class was fighting against the upper class, depending on their background they wanted different things. People holding certain jobs wanted different rights and laws that would be beneficial to them, but their opinions on what would be the most beneficial differed. This resulted in a lack of common goal, which also helped to remove unity. Without leadership, unity, or a common goal, the revolutions were bound to fail because they were revolting against governments that were made to withstand revolutions.
ReplyDeleteI think that you could have added more detail about the factors that caused the revolutions to fail. The first half talks about what caused the revolutions in the first place, which is extremely helpful background info but I think that more background info on the actual failure of the revolutions could also help.
DeleteOverall you answered the prompt very well. It was good to bring in details such as Risorgimento Nationalism, and fighting over rights specific to their jobs. But you should try to expand a little on how the leaders of the revolutions were ineffective.
DeleteOverall, I think you did a nice job offering a few different reasons for the failure of these revolutions. I think to make your response stronger, you could maybe go into more detail regarding what specifically caused separation or a lack of unity within the revolutionary forces. What, specifically, were the rights and laws that some people wanted and others didn't? Also, you seem to be arguing a different reason as your main reason in the last sentence compared to the middle section of your response. Maybe make one your main reason (like a thesis) and you can discuss the other reason as support. But overall, nice job!
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 and 1849 failed for a combination of reasons. First of all, the leadership of the revolutions was ineffective. Many of the leaders had the ideas to modernize and liberalize their country, but not everyone involved had the same opinion of what these changes should include. The leaders of some countries, such as Hungary, assumed all the different minority groups within the country would come together, and therefore, tried to appeal to all of them. But they could not gain enough support from any one individual group, so their administration failed. Another major flaw in the revolutions was the lack of help from other countries. Many of the countries in Europe were going through their own revolutions, and could not get their own organized. And although many of them would have greatly benefited from foreign aid, no country that could have agreed with their revolution had the governmental capacity to address it as it was needed. The lack of internal and external support and organization is what ultimately led to the down fall of many of the 1848/49 revolutions.
ReplyDeleteThis is a well written introduction paragraph that I think provides two strong reasons that have the potential to be analyzed deeper. Mentioning the names of specific leaders and the revolutions and specifics as to which external countries were struggling would add some credibility and strength to your argument.
DeleteI agree with Jen. I would consider limiting the revolutions you look at to three or so, (and then just mention that they were not the only three occurring at this time) that way you can make your points more poignant and relevant. For instance, your first point about the ineffectiveness of leaders would be better served and better sounding should you say, "the progressive leaders of country X, Y, Z, had ideas to modernize and liberalize their country, but supressive leaders from X, Y, Z groups had alternate ideas."
DeleteThe spread of the liberal ideas and the discontent with reactionary governments established by the Congress of Vienna helped spark the Revolutions of 1848. However, the revolutions failed because the new governments established were not strong enough to last. This is because there was a lack of unity among the revolutionaries. Although many different ethnic and intellectual groups united to try and overthrow reactionary rulers they could not maintain their unity, and there was a lack of strong leadership that could enforce their new governments. This made it easy for reactionary powers to re-establish the old government. Another reason is that the reactionary rulers were willing to help fellow rulers out by sending armies to put down rebellions. Since there was a lack of unity among the revolutionaries this proved to be an easy task for reactionary powers. Due to the willingness of reactionary rulers to help on another and the lack of unity of the revolutionaries the Revolutions of 1848 proved to fail in the long run.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is very well written. To improve though, try to expand on why the different revolutionary groups were unable to unite.
DeleteThe unsuccessful revolutions throughout Europe during 1848 and 1849 were ultimately failures due to an immense lack of strength among the revolutionists, a lack of a common reason to overthrow the current government, and the strength of governments at this time period. The working class that insisted on overthrowing the government did have reasons to feel this way because of things like the concept of Risorgimento Nationalism. That was all fine but the problem was a lack of strength because the governments that were in jeopardy always easily took down the working class. A battle between a government and a working class without any outside assistance will always have the same result and government will prevail. Another main issue for the working class was that it is true that there were many that wanted to revolt, but they could not always come together and help each other because their reasons to overthrow were different. For example, if a farmer that lives in the countryside and a working man in the city both want to overthrow that is great but they will not necessarily help each other because it is doubtful that their reasons to overthrow are the same. It is much easier to be working for a common goal. A concluding reason is that for once in history; the current governments were actually relatively strong and willing to help each other. Without the Congress of Vienna, this would have never been the case because Europe was a mess before it. However with the agreements formed between countries, when there was a threat made by rebels to a government, they would just get outside help from one of their "friendly" countries. This goes back to the point that the working class had absolutely no outside help. Even though there were many attempts during the two year span, the failed revolutions in Europe were disastrous due to a general lack of strength of the working class, a lack of a common reason to revolt, and that during this time period countries were strong and had "teammates" to back them up.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you layed this out. I thought the structure of it was very organized and understandable and the information was accurate. I had the same idea about the lack of unity in the lower classes and I think you overall presented it really well.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 in Europe failed because of two main reasons, both of which were outlined in Charles Tilly's hypothesis on Revolutions. In Tilly's hypothesis, however, there a three requirements for a revolution and the first of these is to have a group that opposes the government in power, and this was met in all of the Revolutions of 1848. The other two reasons were the fact that the revolutions did not have the popular support of the people. In many of the countries during this time many of the people wanted to revolutionize their country, however most of them had different views for what they wanted their country to look like after the revolution. Because of this divide in the revolutionaries the revolution could not gain as much momentum to overthrow the government in the country. And that leads to the next reason, the governments ability to stop the revolution. Because of this divide in the revolutionaries it made them weaker allowing for the government to more easily defeat them. Those major factors were why the Revolutions of 1848 and 1849 failed.
ReplyDeleteYou have some good ideas here, but they could be developed a bit more. Instead of using generalized terms to describe your reasons, you could use more specific examples. Maybe you could also talk about how without one of Tilly's conditions for a revolution. a revolution would fail. Also be sure to mention the title of Tilly's piece (Does Modernization Breed Revolution?).
DeleteI thought it was insightful and helpful that you connected your response to Tilly's hypothesis which made fore great support. However, I was confused (and I don't know if this is your point or Tilly's) at the first two points, the necessity to have a group that opposes the government in power and the necessity to the the support of the people. Can't it be argued that there are virtually the same. I understand and agree that it is necessary to have a group that opposes the current government but aren't you just saying the same thing when you mention the second rule of popular support? You must have a group to oppose the government and obviously they are all people are supporting the same overthrow of government. Where they differed was how the rebels want to accomplish this. Can differences in ideas of how to change the government be associated with Tilly's first rule?
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 and 1849 failed because of an overall lack of structure and strength on the part of the revolutionaries. For any of the revolutions of 1848/49 to not fail would have required a lot of structure and organization and structure in order to take down powerful regimes that already had a military on their side. A lack of strength by the revolutionaries mostly refers to a lack of support which makes it hard to succeed in any revolution when there is a lack of support to go up against a powerful regime. This two reasons tie together because the lack of structure was in part caused by the lack of strength and support because with less people it is harder to get the right people in the right positions to take down key parts of a current regime.
ReplyDeleteThis is good. I think you pin pointed the two most crucial factors as to why the revolutions failed. Without structure and strength no revolution could succeed. To make this better maybe you could add examples where the revolutionaries didn't hold their own and were weak.
DeleteGood reasoning for why the revolutionaries lacked the military power to defeat their regimes. Something about the lack of unification on the part of the rebels would be another reason to cite as well. Good job though.
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 failed for several reasons. Because the Congress of Vienna, many small groups of people were repressed and unhappy. This caused them to want to revolt against the current regime that they have been under sense the congress. However, these groups were not organized, aside from Germany and Italy, with other groups which was a major downfall. There were many little revolutions with specific groups instead of one organized revolt against the powers in control of them. Also, the powers they were going up against were much larger therefore having more access to funding, forces, and weapons to defeat the revolutions with. Even if the revolutionaries were a to gain power, they were unable to keep it for long. They weren't organized enough to actually govern themselves and the large powers were easily able to regain control.
ReplyDeleteI liked your ideas here. I had most of the same ideas and I thought you presented them nicely. I liked how you used specific examples such as Germany and Italy. I thought the structure was strong and very easy to follow.
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 began as an upheaval because many groups of people were left upset and dissatisfied at the way things were left by the Congress of Vienna. However, these revolutions failed within a year of their beginning. This can largely be attributed to the lack of organization on the part of the revolutionaries. The revolutions were lead by shaky and questionable leaders who were in charge of groups of middle and lower class workers who did not stay unified for very long periods of time. Many people were killed, imprisoned, or exiled and this scared many of the revolutionaries into retreat. The groups who began the revolutions of 1848 were not organized and did not stick to what they wanted. Had they persevered or even come up with a stronger plan of attack results may have been quite different. Because they had not established a plan of attack, they began to balk at the consequences of revolution, a fate which could have been avoided had they also had stronger leadership. Another pitfall of these revolutions was that they had no focus of what they wanted to accomplish. The revolutionaries wanted democracy and more participation in government, stronger political leaders, improvement of the working class, etc. Had they focused on just one or two specific areas the revolutionaries could have been more firm in their demands. Nearly all successful revolutions such as in America, France, Russia, etc. were focused specifically on changing government, then moved on to address other issues once their primary demand was met. This was the type of approach the revolutionaries needed, yet so glaringly lacked. Their lack of strong leadership, perseverance, and focus all contributed to the demise of the revolutions of 1848.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well constructed answer. I like the fact that you included examples of countries that have experienced successful revolutions and pointed out where the Revolutions of 1848 fell short. Here's a few questions to think about: What resulted from these failures of the Revolutions of 1848? What significance/relevance do they have in relation to the events to follow in history? What can be learned from these failures?
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 did not succeed for multiple reasons, and there were both political, and social factors that contributed to this. One such reason was a lack of followers and organization among those who did push the revolution. This caused the downfall because the opposing side was allowed to push them back, and triumph over the revolutionaries, who couldn't really defend themselves due to their lack of organization. Though overall the revolutions inspired many despite their failure.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your statement about the lack of organization. But you said that there were also political factors, you didn't mention them. I would like the know which one you would have discussed.
DeleteThe European revolutions of 1848 were brought on by an acute discontent of the people of Europe in the wake of the Congress of Vienna, but these revolutions ultimately failed because of a lack of sufficient popular support for their aims and the powerful opposition of the governments of Europe. While the discontent was indeed strong among many groups of the people, these groups were often small and separated, and while they were able to gain a decent following, they failed to accrue enough followers to make a successful attack against the established system of government. In addition, the governments were simply too powerful and well-established to allow a group to overthrow them. They had large armies at their disposal that could easily suppress the revolutionaries. The revolutions were also simply not well-organized, and the revolutionaries had trouble accomplishing significant goals because of an inherent lack of organization in their strategies.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement. I think the textbooks make the revolutions out to be these extremely popular movements when actually they only represented a small radical part of the population. Also, the contemporary leaders were in complete control so they could ultimately control the masses and force them to not side with the radicals.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 were a hasty but justified reaction to the results of the Congress of Vienna. The congress had worked to undo the damage that Napoleon had done, but also the creation of a republic in Europe. The people of the various nations affected by these changes saw the need to revolt, but they lacked the organization and resources to do so. The revolutions were destined to fail, but they were an important expression of the discontent that was running rampant in the populace. The existing governments were simply too strong to be toppled by small groups of revolutionaries.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely understand the big picture of why all of the revolutions failed and the stage that they set in the future of Europe. You also did a good job at showing the shared causes that led them to failure in addressing the Congress of Vienna. In order to improve, you should address specific revolutions in Europe such and address specific examples of why those revolutions failed. And then using those examples, relate them back to your big picture.
DeleteThe reasons behind the ultimate failure of the revolutions of 1848 and 1849 reside in a lack of unity between the disparate groups pushing for change caused by lack of strong leadership, and the lack of international cooperation against the efforts of often powerful ruling regimes. A variety of groups participated in the revolutions of 1848 pushing for changes in their established governments. However, these groups were often split along economic and class lines with very different projected goals, often leading to the collapse of revolutionary efforts. Major examples of this can be seen in the conflict between working class elements and middle class elements of the revolutions in the German states and in the 1846 uprising of Polish nobility in Austrian Galicia which was in tern defeated as peasants rose up against the rebelling nobles. Furthermore, despite a Marxist vision of a unified world of laborers, geographic divisions and lack of international coordination made it easier for established rulers to quell the uprisings. This can largely be seen in Italy’s attempted revolutions in which King Charles Albert of Piedmont-Sardinia attempted to unite Italy by overthrowing Austria, but failed because of a lack of support as Pope Pius IX and King Ferdinand withdrew their troops. Other revolutions were likewise limited by a lack of support from their international neighbors, ultimately leading to failure of the majority of revolutions that year.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions of 1848/49 were really doomed to fail from the start. While they were movements completely different than any past ones and their rise were mainly due to the rise of Risorgimento Nationalism; the creation of a new nation as it is liberated. But this is what doomed them to ultimately fail. There was a sentiment of this nationalism all over these territories now under the ruling of the powers, led to them not being unified. This meant that these revolutions were unorganized and didn't have a unified goal. This is where the most significant difference can be seen in the successful revolutions that followed shortly after- in the Italian Revolution, we see that there are different groups of people whose leaders are committed to the cause of freeing themselves from Austrian control and unifying. There is a strong sense of working together to achieve this liberation. The main weakness that led to the failure of these revolutions is the lack of organization and unity.
ReplyDeleteThis is good, but I think another weakness would have been lack of strength. Due to the initial causes of the revolutions, the rebels were weakened and didn't have the strength to carry on full blown revolutions in their current state. That and the lack of organization and communication led to it ultimately being a failure from the start.
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 primarily failed for the same reasons that others have and will: because of lack of support and lack of leadership. Although support was strong at the beginning, by the end, most people had given up their enthusiasm that had started the revolution. And the support they did have was split into a few groups who all wanted different things. For example, in Italy, Charles Albert was not very popular outside Piedmont.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good start! Maybe you could elaborate a little more about the failures and possibly tie in how nationalism played a role. You could talk more about the methods people used to revolt and how they were unsuccessful.
DeleteThere are many factors that caused the revolutions of 1848 and 1849 in Europe to fail. One of these reasons being is that the revolutions did not have the support of the people, which Tilly outlines is crucial for revolution. There was also no unity between the revolutionaries. The Congress of Vienna did help to start the revolutions of 1848-49 but they failed because the new governments were not stable of strong enough to withstand. The leadership of the revolutions was also a failure and led to its overall demise. The leaders wanted to make changes to their countries but they never agreed on what those changes were. There was no organization at all and the revolutionaries were unfocused without a set goal. The majority of people across Europe were in favor of Risorgimento nationalism, but there were people of different economic status which changed what they wanted from person to person. The combination of these things led to a failed revolution that wouldn't have stood a chance against the powers that were going against and no new form of government was created. For the revolutions to succeed, there would have needed to be much more structure and organization to bring a united front up against the opposing powers.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions of 1848 failed for more than one reason. The Congress of Vienna split up Europe into ways that many people weren't happy with. Countries believed they should have gotten more land than they did, and that other countries shouldn't have gotten the land that they did. This angered them which in turn resulted in the desire for revolution. The majority of the population, and the majority of those involved in the revolts were the working class, this caused a lack of organization. The people of this class stature didn't have the funds, resources, or means of communication to create a well organized revolution. This was happening in countries all over Europe and because of this, the revolutions in turn failed. Had the party had the resources they needed, they might have had the chance to have a successful revolution, but because of the lack of these things, the revolutions were very unorganized and in turn highly unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions of 1848/49 across Europe were supported by large portions of the population, yet most of them also ended in failure. In "Does Modernization Breed Revolution?" by Tilley, he starts by saying that the Sicilian Revolution in 1848 was executed by the majority of the Sicilian population, yet it achieved very little and the people backed down. Despite power in numbers, a common factor among the revolutions, including this one, was a lack of a figurehead to lead them or some other substantial figure with power in the pre-existing system. Without this, the people were unsure of what direction to take and their uncertainty converted into a lack of driving force, and ultimately a failure to revolutionize the systems. A leader is a major component to success in a revolution because it brings unification, and without it, the movement turns to chaos.
ReplyDeleteGood use of a source. You were very clear and concise with your argument. Try and focus on one or two factors specifically that caused the failures to make your point clearer and focused at the beginning. Good job.
DeleteSurging nationalism throughout Europe following the Congress of Vienna caused many cultural nations to seek reform. Pursuing governmental change, many revolutionaries followed strong-willed, radical leaders. During the Revolutions of 1848, small groups with varied goals competed to establish their own ideal reforms. Thus, these revolutions did not meet one of the paramount requirements of a successful revolution: popular support. Subsequently, these revolutionaries did not have powerful enough military forces to adequately overthrow the governments in their respective countries. Finally, when revolutionary groups did establish control of their nation, there was a lack of unity among the various revolutionaries who had diverse goals in mind. Therefore, power was not maintained because sound leadership was impossible to obtain.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what is needed for a revolution to fail. Without the two variables you presented, any revolutions would fail. But there are still the variables that affect the ideas like the current governments suppression or area that the revolutionaries are at.
DeleteI really like how you've written this, it seems like you've put a lot of thought into it. Like Seth, I think you could have added a little more about the things that affect the ideas of the revolution, but over all very nice!
DeleteLack of unity among revolutionaries was a major cause of the failure of the Revolutions of 1848. It is important to consider the types of people that were in favor of revolution at this time; rather than being a homologous group of people in the same economic position, fighting for the same changes in their countries, they were quite different, both in their backgrounds and what they desired to change throughout Europe. The economic crisis, for example, was a major reason so many people initially revolted. Unemployed workers, intellectuals, middle-class workers and starving peasants all felt the toll of the economic crisis and thus wanted to revolt. Yet their differences became problematic in organizing a strong, successful revolution. As discussed in Charles Tilly's "Does Modernization Breed Revolution?", this lack of organization and strength stemming from differences in the revolutionaries prevents the conditions necessary for a revolution from existing. One specific example is that, according to Tilly, there must be an "unwillingness or incapacity of the agents of the government to suppress the alternative coalition or the commitment to its claims". When the revolutionaries lacked organization and strength because they were comprised of many people with differing views, they were more easily suppressible by the nations' governments. To further explain the lack of unity within the revolutionaries, both radicals and workers with less radical views were represented. When the radicals wanted to make larger, more radical changes, they often lacked support from middle-class workers who weren't looking to make quite the same, drastic changes. This prevented the revolutionaries from gaining the necessary strength. Essentially, the Revolutions of 1848/49 failed largely because of the lack of a cohesive, united revolutionary force.
ReplyDeleteLauren, I think you have a really strong argument here! I think it is good that you looked at the individual groups of people that were involved in the revolutions separately, instead of as one whole group, which they clearly weren't. If you were to actually write an entire paper from this into, I think it would really make your argument strong if you went into detail about how these different groups interacted with one another, and how those interactions contributed to the failure of the revolutions! Overall, I think you have a really clear, solid thesis for why the Revolutions of 1848 failed.
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 seemed to be destined for failure from the very beginning because of the time that they occurred and the state of the countries they were emerging from. The revolutions of 1848 were seemed to be a direct result form the congress of Vienna. The revolutionaries seemed to be to confident in their own abilities and were incorrect when considering their power. They had an unclear vision of how the people would actually react to their up coming, especially since many people were still recovering from the previous years. Many of the governments were unstable, and the revolutionaries took advantage of this and chose to up rise up during a time of political unrest. One of the main problems, in my opinion, was the lack of unity among many of the revolutionary groups leaders. There was an extreme lack of communication and collaboration between the revolutionaries and this was a major problem they had which caused many set backs. Along with these communication problems, the revolutionaries then found that there was an extreme lack of popular support from the people in many of the countries. They found that although many of their goals were fairly similar, the lack of consensus between these goals made it hard for the revolutionaries to work together towards a common goal. For many of these reasons, along with many other reasons, the revolutions of 1848 and 1849 were almost failures from the beginning, and were punished for many of the unorganized tactics of their structures and goals.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 failed partly due to lack of organization. For instance, in Austria, no communication was maintained among the revolts in Prague, Vienna, and Budapest, allowing the Austrian army to attend to each individually and regain control, without a united front. Groups of revolutionaries also differed greatly in their tactics as well as their goals, causing a division between them. This made it difficult to create powerful and successful revolutions because, instead of uniting to gain strength, these groups of revolutionaries continued to have conflicting interests remained isolated.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions of 1848 failed for several reasons. The first being an overall lack of support. The fundamental lack of backing by much of the population made it difficult to truly establish a revolutionary direction; with many people in disagreement some uprisings were counter productive to the overall revolution. Next, there was a lack of political power and structure. The weakened political system had difficulties with establishing a presence across mush of Europe. Finally there was a lack of nationalism on an individual basis. However some of the "political powerhouses" of this time such as France and Germany had a great backing from their people as well as a somewhat strong sense of nationalism. This was not the case across the whole of Europe, some other nations seemingly lacked support.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying about the lack of support and structure among the political system. Support and structure are important for a nation to be strong, and for uprisings to happen less often.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 were inevitable due to the results of the Congress of Vienna. The same leaders and governments were installed into countries making no change to the economy, people's lives, social rights, etc. However, once the revolutions had begun they were bound to fail for three reasons. One of these reasons being that the rebellions were very unorganized and no control was established. Even when there was control and plans were made, it was communicated across the country slowly and unefficiently. Thus, communication also lead to the failure of the revolutions because no on was "on the same page" for lack of a better phrase. In addition, the division in the different groups of the revolution ultimately led to its demise. There were too many demands made from the different social classes. The only thing they could agree on was that a revolution needed to take place. But past that, they could not agree on the means of what they wanted to accomplish nor how they would do so. Without organization, communication, and commoniality these revolutions were destined to fail from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteAfter the revolutions of 1848 occured, it was clear that years later there was no effect or change, leading to the conclusion that they were in fact a failure. The failures of the revolutions was due mostly in part to lack of unity and lack of support when it came to a common goal. There wasn't a direct aim for what the people wanted achieved. No coordination and lack of support from the people led to them not being able to find a common ground. There was also lack of control no direct authority, and very little who were unexperienced. Changes that were made to be permanentt ended up being temporary due to the lack of leader in the revolution. The opponents (rulers) had large, experienced armies while the revolutionaries had smaller, untrained armies which were defeated. Overall, due to the lack of organization, experience, leadership and much more, the revolutions of 1848 were never meant to succeed
ReplyDeleteThis Is Scarlett Del Giudice Boyer's post.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848, for the most part, failed in their attempts at political and social revolutions for various common factors. The main reason was that most of the revolutions were extremely disorganized with no leader whatsoever. This lack of central leadership caused dissonance in the various factions of the revolutionary body. The people knew that they wanted change however they all went about it differently, some more forceful than others and thus did not have a united front on the debated subject. It seemed like the wind blowing on a piece of paper from all sides, the paper will not fall unless the wind joins together and blows all from the same side. Without a central, uniting leadership, the revolutions could not acheive a specific item to change and were doomed to fail. Another common factor leading to the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 was the lack of cooperation between the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries in the rebellion were often divided by race and religion. Without a common ground the revolutionaries who wanted the same change did not trust or attempt to cooperate with each other leading to more disunification in the revolutionary movement. Without cooperation and a unified leadership, the Revolutions of 1848 could not succeed and were failures from the beginnning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with you on why the revolutions of 1848 failed. I also like your paper in the wind comparison. But, what about the force that the government would put against the revolutionaries?
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 never had a chance at being successful because they were a knee-jerk reaction to the much larger problems caused by the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna acted as a bond between the oppressed, leading to a feeling of comaradery and forming Risorgimento Nationalism, which despite it's strength, did not have the ability to sustain it's original vitality. Thus, division and disorganization were the two main factors that caused the Revolutions of 1848 to fail. The main division was the battle between the ruling class and the oppressed. Despite the unification of the lower class in their battle against their superiors, they typically had different reasons for their involvement; without a common goal for the Revolutions, success could never be achieved. The needs of farmers were different from that of merchants, who had different needs than factory workers; division within the lower classes caused disorganization due to the fact they were unable to support each other. Although it was apparent a revolt was necessary, the terms on which it would be executed were never agreed on, and thus the Revolutions of 1848 failed.
ReplyDeleteVery nice Jenn! I liked your ideas of how a revolt was indeed necessary, but the revolutionaries could not find a common ground.
DeleteThe revolutions of 1848 failed due to a fundamental lack of military strength on the part of the rebels. In each revolution, the causes of the revolution tended to weaken an already disadvantaged populace, preventing a successful revolt. Most of the revolutions were caused by a need for social reforms due to intolerable social conditions, such as the calling of the Landwehr in Rhineland or the remnants of feudalism in Vienna, and economic weaknesses such as unemployment, inflation, and a poor harvest. These causes, while being the reason for the revolutions, also weakened the populace, and made it impossible for the poor farmers and middle class workers to take on their governments' militaries. On top of this, despite revolutions existing all over Europe, these revolutions managed to be divided and isolated from each other, preventing their success against their larger governments. This combination of the division of the rebels and the underlying causes of the revolutions prevented the rebels from gaining the military strength necessary for defeating their governments, ultimately spelling doom for the revolutions of 1848.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 and 1849 were destined for failure. Taking place in response to the Congress of Vienna, there was a sense of Risorgimento Nationalism. The people wanted to revolt, but for different reasons. Because the communication was so poor between the people, the people could never agree on a final intention of the revolution. Also the revolutions did not carry the full support of the people, which in Tilly's revolution outline is crucial, the revolutions were unorganized and eventually failed.
ReplyDeleteI agree it was a failure from the beginning, I don't think that it was all based of lack of full support and communication. Strength was also a factor as the reasons for the revolutions weakened the rebels before the revolutions even started.
DeleteThese European Revolutions had many factors contributing to their start. The first of which was the communal strife over a lack of food, a poor economy, and poor leadership in the government. Secondly, was the wide spread of liberalism in the country. Lastly was the large feeling of nationalism made by hope for unification of the nation. The three factors listed stimulated the revolutions of 1848 and 1849. The reason these revolts were undoubtedly unsuccessful, was in the failure of the citizens to combine their efforts due to differentiation in desires and poor communication between the people of what they want for their nation. According to Tilly, full support of the people was necessary for a revolution. Those of 1848 and 1849 did not have this aspect of the model.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the revolutions failed because of lack of support, you'd think that the need for food and leadership would be topics that all of the revolutionaries could agree on. Their large feeling of nationalism should have unified them,but everyone had a different idea on how that nation should grow. However, I also think the failure stemmed from a lack of strength; possibly due to lack of leadership and poor diet. Eventually, people just gave up.
DeleteI agree that the revolutions failed because of lack of support, you'd think that the need for food and leadership would be topics that all of the revolutionaries could agree on. Their large feeling of nationalism should have unified them,but everyone had a different idea on how that nation should grow. However, I also think the failure stemmed from a lack of strength; possibly due to lack of leadership and poor diet. Eventually, people just gave up.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 and 1849 failed as they had a lack of organization and strength. Being a response to the Congress of Vienna, they lacked full support and had poor organization between those who did. The revolutions were never a joint effort and easy to pick off one at a time. Due to the aforementioned problems, the revolutions were a failure from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteWhat common factors caused the 1848/49 revolutions in Europe to fail?
ReplyDeleteCommon factors that caused the 1848/49 revolutions in Europe to fail was the diversity in the aims in which people fought for such as: social and economic policies. Different classes wanted different reforms, which caused a great divide in the revolutionaries' goals. The addition of mediocre-terrible leaders of these revolutions caused them to fail due to the inability to get one large group all fighting for the same exact thing. Although some reforms did occur, the revolutionaries ended up giving up because they know that their one common goal was out of reach.
This is a good though. I think the facts could have been more specific but over all, you used good reasoning to explain that them not uniting under a common goal was important to their fail.
DeleteThis is a good thought! I think your facts could have been more specific but overall it was a good argument. I think you explained why the lack of commonality was the downfall of Europe.
DeleteThis is a good though. I think the facts could have been more specific but over all, you used good reasoning to explain that them not uniting under a common goal was important to their fail.
DeleteThanks. I'll be more specific next time.
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 failed for one main reason: lack of leadership. There were no strong leaders to either continue the revolution or lead a revolutionized government. An example of lack of leadership after a revolution seemingly succeeded is in Germany. The Frankfurt Convention was formed in order to check the power of the king. However, there was very little leadership in this body that could actually help the people of Germany to control the king; they could merely suggest ideas to the king, and he had the power to strike any of them down. In Italy, the revolution failed because there was a lack of leadership during the revolution. Although Charles Albert united Lombardy with Piedmont, he shows poor leadership throughout his service to the revolution. He wanted to unite all of Italy, but he did not trust the citizens of states other than his own. These two display poor leadership during and after the revolutions, which lead to their failure.
ReplyDeleteNice job, I agree that there was a lack of leadership in the Revolutions of 1848 that contributed to their failure. I liked how you used examples to back up your explanations! But you don't think there are any other factors involved in the revolutions failures?
DeleteThe common factor that led to the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 was the lack of structure among the citizens. In every revollution, the rebels failed to have large leadership or organization to their approach. It was a very chaotic approach to revolution. Their battles were often small and spontaneous uprisings within the towns. The small revolutions did not make an effort to coordinate their revolutions so they could not combat the military strength and structure of the ruling governments. In addition to this, the groups participating within the revolution all had very different goals and expectations for the outcome of the revolutions. This lack of coordination once again made it difficult for the rebels to unite between one another and find a common cause. Overall, this lack of structure and unity among the rebels didn't allow for the rebels to compete with the strong and unified militaries of the ruling governments.
ReplyDeleteThis is intriguing Cullen and I like your idea about the lack of structure among citizens as being the causing factor. However, by this were you trying to express a lack of unity and a disagreement among the revolutionaries on what to revolutionize? Many had different views about race or religion and to improve your blog, you could just expand on how their disagreements reflect the lack of structure and leadership of the revolutions. Great job!
DeleteAlthough the Revolutions of 1848 influenced some of Europe's traits today, the revolutions primarily failed when trying to establish a new form of government. Europe in the mid 1800's was very disorganized and partly one of the reasons why the revolutions were unsuccessful. Many citizens shared opposing viewpoints on how the country should be run and when the population over threw a government, there was no back up plan to run the country. The French Revolution was one of the first revolutions that proved to the lower class that monarchies could be overthrown. Once the monarchy was overthrown, the small oposition parties shared so many opposing viewpoints about property and wealth, that the very few reforms took place. With an organized lower class and a common goal, the revolutions of 1848 may have been more successful in shaping Europe to needs at the time.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about the disorganization of the revolutions, I too believe that it was a significant cause to the failure of the revolutions. I also liked how you referenced the French Revolution, how these revolutions differ, and why the French Revolution was successful.
DeleteThe reasons the Revolutions of 1848/49 failed was because there was a lack of leadership and strength among the nations. With no strong leaders present in the societies after the revolutions, the nations had a hard time building up all the classes in order to keep the nation strong and together. Structure among the nations was also a lacking necessity that they needed in order to be successful. During this time the lower, third class was the most important class because it held all the society together.
ReplyDeleteWhat are specific examples in countries that had a lack of leadership and their specific effects of this?
DeleteThe failure of the Revolutions of 1848 were largely a result of the lack of organization and unity within nations. Many groups of revolutionaries existed, but they often had specific conflicting motives and goals which ultimately prevented one another from making any progress. In order to succeed, revolutionaries within nations would require a strong leader so that the nation could unify their efforts and gain the strength needed to overthrow the current regime. However, in the Revolutions of 1848, groups of revolutionaries tended to become isolated due to a lack of communication and cooperation. Without a strong leader to bring them together, the revolutions never had a chance at success.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a solid base for the prompt. I completely agree with your general theses. Could you be more specific as to what kind of people disagreed and for what reasons?
DeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 failed for several reasons, mainly rooted in lack of support and unity. The lack of support was primarily based on disagreements within the population on which path the revolution should take. Uprisings ensued because of this. In addition, the overwhelming lack of political power was no help in establishing control or a common opinion among the peoples of various countries. The government did not trust in the people and the people, for the most part, did not trust in the government, or in each other, for that matter. This lack of unity caused a lack of popular support and distrust and bias within the population, which ended in insubstantial nationalism. While few nations, such as Germany, had a strong sense of nationalism, governments of countries such as Russia's faltered.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 were caused by the unhappiness after the Congress of Vienna in Europe. The Congress of Vienna aimed to clean up the things that Napoleon left behind, however it sparked tension on the European countries. Small and separated groups had their own ideas of how Europe should look, which caused the revolutions to fail. Because of the different goals about an ideal Europe, the revolutions didn’t demonstrate popular support by the people, leading the revolutions to failure. The government was strong enough to hold off the small and separated groups, the people needed to unify and identify the main goal to start a successful revolution. Lastly, the disorganization of the revolutionaries is another reason of why these revolutions were unsuccessful. So, it is important to have organization and popular support by the people to have a successful revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions that occurred in Europe in 1848-49 inevitably failed due to the over excitement and lack of organization that ultimately led to the fall of all efforts. Each European country was focused on making the point that they were angry. The Sicilian Revolution that occurred in January of 1848 sparked other countries to also revolt, causing mostly destruction and little to no progress. These revolutions failed because they failed to make their voices heard in a civilized manner.
ReplyDeleteI liked your ideas, and agree that it failed due to over excitement and lack of organization but I think there are some more factors that contributed to the failure. If you are only going to talk about two you should include more detail and explanations of your thoughts.
DeleteMr. Daniel, please submit this draft instead.
ReplyDeleteThe Revolutions of 1848 established goals, however they would never be reached. The mindset of the people of Europe was so focused on making changes and make a stand but never knew how to approach it. The Revolutions failed because the people couldn’t come together to decide on one common goal, or organize themselves in a manner to conduct such a plan. They want change and to bring on a new form of government and stated what they wanted but couldn’t decide how to pursue their goals. For example the French Revolution showed the rest of Europe that the governments could be overthrown, but there was never enough planning or order from the people afterwards to carry on with their ideas. They didn’t know what to do after they had overthrown, showing that the people just want to prove a point but can’t pursue it. They overestimated their own power, and thought everyone would just join in to their revolution however with no direction or planning, just an idea, they had little support. There were also so many smaller parties within each country because of opposing viewpoints due to status, which led the revolutions to fail, with no sense of a direct path. If there had been better communication, planning, leadership and organization the people would have been more directed and supportive. Tilly states that a revolution needs full support of the people, and with little organization and planning it couldn’t be achieved, and that’s why the revolutions were bound to fail.
The Revolutions of 1848 failed for a variety of common reasons. First of all, the revolutions were much unorganized. Second of all, there was conflict between the revolutionaries themselves. The revolutions were unorganized because of the lack of unity between supporters. Many people pushed for the improvement of different things, and had different views. Even though the poor economic state was what drove them to unite and revolutionize in the first place, there evolved many differences between the people that mad the revolutions almost counter-productive. It was in turn for there to be a leader of each revolution because of the different views that separated the supporters. Because of this lack of leadership and the different views of race, religion, and some economic standpoints, the revolutions of 1848 failed because they were not united closely enough in a general consensus to revolt for the same things.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions of 1848/1849 had a very similar general trend. They all had a similar cause in which the working class wanted more power and a more liberal style of government. A big reason for the failure of the revolutions was the variety of opinions of the revolutionaries themselves therefore making the revolutionaries in general weaker. Leaders in these nations were also very aggressive and oppressive which made it even harder for revolutionaries to succeed. Military forces in particular served as an obstacle revolutionaries could not overcome. In general, people from many classes wanted different results and this distress between groups served as a catalyst for the failure of these revolutions.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1848 and 1849 revolutions, there were many reasons as to why they failed. One reason is because there were many different groups among the people to where no one could come to an agreement on how to "revolt." In France, the first and second estates did not want to revolt at all, but the third estate did. The third estate managed to have several groups with very specific ideals. This caused them to separate even more, making the revolutions they tried to do unstable. Another reason as to why they failed was that even though there were many people amongst the population who wanted to revolt, the upper classes of people remained certain that nothing would happen and went to great lengths to not let it. With the amount of people willing to revolt, there never seemed to be enough power to overcome the wealthy. These revolutions could have succeeded if the lower classes were willing to commit to the same ideals and if their power could overcome the wealthier classes.
ReplyDeletethis post shows your depth and understanding of the Revolutions of 1848 and 9. It is clear that you are knowledgeable about the subject matter and your formatting of your paragraph allow for your points to be clearly stated. Great!
DeleteThe Congress of Vienna was revolutionary due to the unification of Germany and how it emerged. This helped settle the issues of the Napoleonic Era, although it caused France to lose most of its land which caused the revolutions of 1848. The monarchs wanted to go back to 1789 by balancing in power, creating new border lines to make France weaker, to conference about peace and being in an agreement to meet yearly to discuss about how to keep peace in Europe and to restore power to the monarchs and getting a king back on the throne. There was new political ideas like the birth of conservatism and liberalism that were created.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutions were led by a varying mixture of ethnic groups, middle class, workers, and other agitating for change. The major concern/problem was that the revolutions did not unite their vision for the future. This brought riots and demonstrations about political concessions and even actual revolutions which led to monarch leaders to be forced to go into seclusion or even flee the country. The factors that led to the failing of the revolutions were that the popular movement and the support for change came from the cities, rural areas where much more conservative or political. Another factor was that the military remained loyal to the established order and royalty generally was used for support to other monarchs.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good start here! I would explain why the military remained loyal and the specific effects that that had on the revolutions.
DeleteThe 1848 and 1849 revolutions consisted of many rebellions due to the unhappiness of people with the government. The government was overturned. People, generally need to be led in a direction that they can all agree on, however, without a structured government, the revolutions were led by the common people. This is a problem because there is no balance of power or effective strategies toward the goal. They were then unable to do anything that was worth their while. This is why the whole of the revolutions failed.
ReplyDeleteThis is good but I think that going into more detail would help. Explaining why the people need structure and how there wasn't any structure would help as well.
DeleteThe common factor leading to the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 was the lack of structure and organization within citizens. In each revolution, the rebels did not incorporate leadership or organization into their approaches. This lead to chaotic and messy attempts where battle were small and spontaneous. Because the smaller revolutions did not coordinate with other arguer revolutions, they were unable to combat the military strength of the ruling governments. Also, the different groups within each revolution had their own agenda pertaining to the outcome of the revolutions. For example, different classes wanted different reforms and rights. Again, this made it difficult for the rebels to unite together. Overall, the lack of structure among the rebels made the revolutions almost impossible to achieve.
ReplyDeleteYour paragraph is structured in a way that is straight to the point, you do not go in circles as why the revolutions failed. I liked how you analyzed some of your examples and also you did give some detail of some events. Well done
DeleteIn the revolutions of 1848 each nation having a revolution could agree on the bad leadership that they were under, but in each revolution there was to much disorganization among the revolutionary parties to actually move any further in the revolution. The revolutionaries began to fight among themselves rather than against the original common goal, which was to overthrow the existing government. Also usually the military sided with the existing government and because the revolutionaries could never unite, they could never produce a fighting force strong enough to stand against the existing regime's military.
ReplyDeleteCORI REID'S POST:
ReplyDeleteMany common factors caused the 1848/49 revolutions to fail, including, the stable governments and lack of leadership. Most of the governments in Europe were secure at that point in time, granted yes they were dysfunctional, but they had enough to keep them going and they had enough power over the people to stop the idea of a revolution. This is seen in France in particular when the government is simply able to wipe out the revolutionaries. Also, across Europe there were no real leaders leading these revolutions causing them to fall flat and have nowhere to go once they succeeded. Thus was seen in Germany where many of the intellectuals were leading separate protests but they didn’t work together to beat the larger power.
The factors that lead the 1848 and 1849 revolutions to fail was the lack of leadership and organization. One of the reasons being, that this revolutions were led by a people of different backgrounds. This caused for the people not come to an agreement over situations, they weren’t united; instead they spent their time fighting over who was right. Another factor was that although there was a large majority of people who did want to revolt, the difference in classes affected the steps towards uniting to revolt. The upper classes did not want anything to happen since they were happy of their status. Because a large majority of the population was not in the upper class they were not happy about their status and therefore attempted to revolt. Their attempts weren’t helpful since the power of the upper class was overpowering everything. These and some other factors caused the failure of the 1848 and 1849 revolutions.
ReplyDelete