1. Why is the revolution
of Greece the catalyst for change in the congress of Vienna?
2. Is nationalism more revolutionary than liberalism during
this time?
3. Socialism: another
example of French misguided foolishness?
4. Why is mass
politics becoming important?
Also, we need to get "Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846-1847: Prelude to Hatred Paperback– May 13, 1987" by
TEST ON WEDNESDAY 2/12! Up to page 777
Turn in all but post one in the comments here. (Taylor #1 Maura #2 Katie #3)
Also, we need to get "Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846-1847: Prelude to Hatred Paperback– May 13, 1987" by
TEST ON WEDNESDAY 2/12! Up to page 777
Turn in all but post one in the comments here. (Taylor #1 Maura #2 Katie #3)
1) The revolution of Greece was the catalyst for change in the congress of Vienna because Greece's situation was different from France's. Greece revolted against the Ottomans because of the desire for freedom. However, Europe and the Congress of Vienna were opposed because of their desire for peace, not revolution. They supported the Ottomans view of anti-revolution and the limit of rights for Greece because it prevented them from revolting. Eventually, however, Europe started supporting Greece because they saw the revolution as a holy one. Britain, France, and Russia destroyed a fleet of Turkish ships. They took control of the Ottomans and gave Greece its freedom. This scenario was much different than France's. France was not given their freedoms after their revolution but instead were deprived of them. The Congress never joined France in the French revolution because it threatened the power of different European countries. They pulled back on the reigns regarding the French revolution but created an aura of nationalism in Greece. In the Greek revolution however, the congress and France joined in the revolution against the Turks because the demise of Greece would affect the culture, literature, and religion of Europe. "Educated Americans and Europeans were in love with the culture of classical Greece; Russians were stirred by the piety of their Orthodox brethren." Greece gave them reasons to fight in a revolution while the French did not. Also, France had no ruler during the French Revolution while other countries did giving them a difference of opinion regarding politics. Greece however was a democratic government and Europe was on its way in becoming a representative government. The ideas of the congress of Vienna changed from anti-revolutionary to revolutionary. They changed from absolutism to a republic. From conservatism to nationalism.
ReplyDelete3. French socialism was the result of years of political disunity and indecision. The Revolution fought first against absolute monarchy under Louis XVI, then against liberal republicanism under Robespierre, until finally ending with a military dictatorship under Napoleon. When his dictatorship failed, France reestablished a conservative monarchy with socialist influence. This government called for government control over the economic affairs—the opposite of the laissez-faire liberalism. Socialists wanted the government to regulate business and manufacturing to protect the workers from unfair wages and poor conditions. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, France struggled to decide which type of government would be best suited to its needs, so it experimented with all. Unlike the first three, the socialist movement in France was less of a shot in the dark and more of a culmination of certain aspects of previous governments. It was liberal in that the monarch was present, but not absolutist, because a balance of power was required and enforced. Additionally, it aimed to help the poor, as Napoleon had attempted to do by abolishing feudalism. For that reason, the socialist movement has been the most enduring, as it is still present in France today.
ReplyDelete2. Nationalism during this time is definitely more revolutionary than Liberalism for several reasons. The new concept of Liberalism campaigned for a representative government, opposition to autocratic monarchy, and equality before the law. A person could categorize himself as either a liberal, or a conservative. Nationalism, on the other hand, was so unique because both liberals and conservatives supported it. Nationalism in the 19th century was the belief that all people should be free to govern themselves in their own land. The nature of the government in such newly constructed countries was up for grabs. Its ideology went beyond the spectrum of liberty and equality. European nationalists usually sought to turn their newfound pride and cultural unity into a political reality. Nationalism threatened to create an entirely new country out of multinational empires, whereas Liberalism only threatened to create a new form of government within countries that already existed. This idea was certainly revolutionary and shaped European politics until after World War I and beyond. For example, Poland became a country under this premise of nationalism.
ReplyDelete