Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course
European History.
So, there are many candidates for most important
year in European history--1492, when permanent
links between Afroeurasia and the Americas
first formed; 1688, when the Glorious Revolution
gave Europe an example of constitutional governments;
1789, when the French Revolution directly
challenged monarchy; 1992, when the European
Union was founded.
But you can sure make a case for 1848, when
revolutions swept across Europe in the wake
of the upheavals and protest we saw in the
last episode.
People in cities were suffering from economic
dislocation, many having come from farms where
new machinery had made their labor unnecessary.
And urban artisans were also under threat
because industrialization was automating some
of their jobs,
Systems of government that had functioned
effectively for agrarian, subsistence economies
were proving ineffective for this brave new
world.
In short, automation was changing work and
governments weren’t functioning particularly
well.
The more things change . . .
INTRO
By the end of 1848, France, the Austrian Empire,
Denmark, Hungary, the Italian States, and
even Poland would be enmeshed in the greatest
wave of revolutions Europe has ever seen.
Many Europeans were experiencing the “Hungry
Forties,” caused once again by bad harvests
and especially in Ireland the potato blight,
a mold that devastated potato crops in Ireland
and elsewhere in Europe.
The problem was made worse by several aspects
of what might be called economic modernity—that
is, standardization, one-crop agriculture,
and more efficient wholesaling of food.
In terms of standardization and one-crop agriculture,
traditionally Peru had at least 4-5,000 types
of potatoes.
So if one type contracted a specific blight,
there were still several thousand other varieties
that might be safe.
But Europe, followed by the United States,
was gradually turning toward farms that focused
on a single crop, and often a single strain
of a crop, for efficiency.
Increasingly, imperialists forced this standardization
and single crop farming on other parts of
the world, raising the chances for disaster.
Because of the single strain of potato, blight
devastated entire crops.
And this resulted in death from starvation
and diseases that invaded the weakened bodies
of at least a million Irish farmers and their
families.
Another million or more emigrated, some to
England and others to the United States and
Canada (where in both cases, by the way, there
were no laws creating a distinction between
legal and illegal immigration.
People simply moved in.).
And as scarcity deepened in 1846 and 1847,
Britain’s liberal Whig government stuck
to its belief in laissez-faire, meaning that
the government should let events play themselves
out, and therefore offered the Irish no help
at all.
The system of usually English landlords requiring
payment from Irish peasants to work farmland
also worsened the crisis--like, throughout
the Irish famine, huge amounts of food were
exported from Ireland to England.
Even today, the population of Ireland has
not recovered from the famine--some eight
million people lived on the island in 1840;
today, around 6.6 million do.
Meanwhile, on the continent, food riots became
common and threats to merchants, and storekeepers,
and bakers, and government officials became
more menacing and direct.
One warning read: “If the grain merchants
do not cease to take away grains.
. . we will go to your homes and cut your
throats and those of the three bakers. . . and
burn the whole place down.”
So, yeah, it was pretty tense--as things tend
to be when people are starving.
Also, amid all this deprivation and death,
anti-slavery and pro-freedom ideas were circulating.
Between 1833-1838, Britain freed slaves across
the empire, except in India.
A system of slave-like indentured labor did
spring up, but the rhetoric in Europe at least,
was one of emancipation.
In eastern Europe, Moldavia and Wallachia
began freeing several hundred thousand enslaved
Roma in 1843.
Later, in 1848, France also re-emancipated
slaves after their re-enslavement under Napoleon.
These events were accompanied by popular abolitionism,
and uprisings, and the development of a language
of freedom, especially freedom from governmental
and structural oppression.
And that’s really important, because in
some ways, its only when we have language
for ideas that we’re able to share them
and talk about them.
And so, developing a language around freedoms,
and ideas about human rights allowed us to
share those ideas.
On the cultural front, women such as French
novelist George Sand (which was a pseudonym)
and the English Bronte sisters --pictured
behind me, looking translucent as always--published
best-selling novels that addressed the persecution
of women.
Sand dressed in men’s clothes to get cheaper
seats at the theater and for a while led a
scandal-ridden life.
The Brontes did quite the opposite, but they
still shocked people with their portrayal
of women as mad or crazed in domestic confinement.
Across Europe, women reformers actively addressed
the disproportionate poverty of women, which
intensified as price inflation for food made
it harder to feed families in the Hungry Forties.
Many working women also became more politically
active, demonstrating in front of city halls
because their meager salaries no longer sufficed
to buy high-priced bread.
Hey, so quick question about the Bronte sisters
painting behind me.
Who is this spectral figure in the middle
who has been erased from the painting?
Is that their weird brother who was an opiate
addict?
What was his name?
Bromwell?
Stan says his name was Branwell.
which might be even worse.
Update!
We just found out that Branwell Bronte painted
that painting, and he painted himself in with
his sisters, but then he painted himself out,
which is so sad!
Oh!
The self-hatred!
Now I feel really bad making fun of you, person
who’s been dead for 150 years.
OK, let’s move on.
So, when we last visited Italy, there was
no such thing as Italy.
Its territory was parceled out among the Spanish
Bourbons to the south, the Austrian Habsburgs
to the north, and the papacy in the center,
among several other stakeholders.
But when audiences at the operas of composer
Giuseppe Verdi heard his rousing choruses
celebrating freedom and triumph over adversity,
they rose to their feet cheering, and made
Verdi a symbol of a unified Italy free from
foreign domination.
And in the fall of 1847, women in Messina
Sicily did more than cheer; they tore down
royal insignia and in January 1848 they took
to the streets, beginning a brief revolution
that took place in many parts of the peninsula.
These women supported Giuseppe Mazzini, who
wanted national unification and a republican
form of government.
Others favored a government headed by the
pope, and still others wanted a monarchy.
In the end, this disunity allowed for the
revolutions to be defeated as Austrians, French,
and other military forces were sent in to
stop it.
In fact, disunity of revolutions leading to
failure will become something of a theme.
Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.
1.
In February 1848, myriad interests came together
to spark revolution in Paris and then in other
French cities.
2.
Upper-class reformers objected to the cronyism,
limited voting rights, and censorship.
3.
But in contrast, the prime minister, historian
François Guizot, thought Louis-Philippe’s
government was just right.
4.
The crowds sent him and the king into exile.
5.
Those crowds were backed by the upper-class
reformers, but they were fueled by discontented
workers, the unemployed, and struggling artisans
6. —all affected by rising food prices as
well as uncertain conditions of employment.
7.
A socialist different from the ones we’ve
already talked about, Louis Blanc, was attuned
to the needs of workers and the poor in Paris.
8.
He convinced the new provisional government
to set up national workshops to create jobs
for unemployed men.
9.
Women successfully demanded that workshops
be established for them too and unsuccessfully
nominated George Sand—“male by virtue
of virility, female by divine intuition”--as
a representative to the National Assembly.”
10.
As spring progressed, a new national assembly,
composed of less than ten percent workers,
11.
shut down the workshops and formed a new national
police force composed of men from the countryside,
12. who had little patience for city people
and their city problems.
13.
In June, tens of thousands of workers rose
up and fought the national police for several
days,
14. until the bodies were piled high and the
workers defeated.
15.
Now a republic, France held elections based
on universal male suffrage,
16. which the nephew of Napoleon, Louis-Napoleon
Bonaparte, won handily,
17.
due to the support of peasants in the countryside.
18.
Lest you think the rural-urban divide is anything
new.
Thanks Thought Bubble.
So, just as these revolutions started, a new
socialist duo, German lawyer and journalist
Karl Marx and Manchester textile mill owner
Friedrich Engels, issued The Communist Manifesto.
Its famous opening—"A spectre is haunting
Europe—the spectre of communism” used
the word communism instead of socialism based
on the idea that society would soon revert
to a traditional “community” of like-minded
people.
Marx and Engels believed that class struggle
was going to erupt and wash away upper-class
oppression, and that the proletariat would
seize the means of production--that is, factories
and land and everything else would be shared
by everyone, rather than owned by the few.
And for the moment, that was pretty much it
for “Marxist” socialism.
But over the next half century, however, it
would, of course, take a firmer theoretical
shape and infuse workers’ programs for change
across the globe, and become tremendously
influential.
And while initially, few people paid attention
to the Marxist ideas of class struggle, but
some kind of struggle was certainly happening:
The revolutions erupting across central and
eastern Europe featured--depending on who
you were--calls for the creation of constitutionally
directed government structures, an end to
serf-like oppression and censorship, restoration
of aristocratic privileges, and yes, even
democracy.
In short, people wanted more power, and also
greater rights and protection of those rights.
And of course, then as now, ideas were not
limited by borders.
Like, news of the revolution in France sent
Berlin’s activists into the streets, pushing
for an array of changes but mostly for the
unification of the German states.
King Frederick William IV, who was forced
to witness the carnage on Berlin’s streets,
summoned a congress to meet at Frankfurt to
plan for reform and unification.
The meeting was dominated by the princes of
the several dozen individual states, and it
progressed slowly as the princes debated whether
to include Austria in this unification project
until the Prussian king, on being offered
the crown of a constitutional monarchy refused
to accept “a crown from the gutter.”
So instead, he would get no crown at all,
and the German states would remain disunited.
Did the Center of the World just open?
Is there a gutter crown in there?
I don’t know if this gutter crown is for
children, or if I just have an exceptionally
large head, but regardless, if there is one
lesson from 19th century Europe, it’s that
royals should take a gutter crown and be grateful
for it.
You know what’s fun?
Being the Queen of England, or of the Netherlands.
You know what’s not fun?
Being the king of Germany.
Because there is no king.
OK.
Let’s turn our attention to Poland.
So, already in 1846, Polish nationalists from
the upper-classes in the Galician city of
Cracow, hoped to lead a revolt against Austrian
rule.
but, peasants in the region refused to join
them because Austrian rule was the peasants’
only hope for gaining freedom from the payments
and service that they owed aristocratic landowners.
What’s that?
Stan says I have to take off the gutter crown.
So, we like to think of revolutions as being
neatly for freedoms or against them, but here
we have an example of it being much more complicated.
Because if you’re in like, the upper classes
in Poland, or a working person in a city,
freedom might look like freedom from Austrian
oppression.
But if your a peasant, freedom looks like
freedom from feudalism.
So during that revolution, peasants rose up
and slaughtered several thousand from the
land-holding Polish nobility.
You can see how Marx came to believe class
struggle was inevitable.
The same fragmentation appeared in March 1848
when an uprising broke out in cities across
the Austrian empire.
Remember Prince Metternich, architect of conservative
reforms in Central Europe?
By 1848 he was so unpopular that disliking
him managed to unite the disparate interests
of various classes and ethnic identities in
the empire.
Middle-class reformers wanted constitutional
rule; aristocrats wanted more power than they
had with Metternich’s imperial bureaucracy
running things, workers wanted both political
and economic reforms, and peasants, of course,
wanted an end to the last oppressive vestiges
of feudalism.
And in the face of temporary enthusiasm on
all sides, Metternich fled the country in
disguise.
Later Emperor Ferdinand stepped down in favor
of his nephew, Francis Joseph, whose nephew
Francis--or Franz--Ferdinand would go on to
be a rather famous assasination victim.
Good God was there a rich person in central
Europe not named Frederick or Francis or William
or Louis or William-Louis or Frederick-William-Louis
or Francis-Frederick-William-Louis?
At any rate, with the common enemy of Metternich
gone, the common purpose soon disappeared
as well.
Peasants across the empire were, as they had
been in 1846, not terribly interested in the
push for noble and middle-class rights.
They retreated from the fight once the imperial
government abolished all traditional dues
and obligations to the nobility.
And as for the liberals and aristocrats—in
Austria and across most of Europe—they weren’t
thrilled with the idea of giving workers the
right to vote.
They believed that workers did not have a
big picture perspective and instead were concerned
with food, shelter, and taxes.
As one privileged Austrian deputy put it:
“we should prevent only those individuals
from voting who live from a daily wage or
who enjoy contributions from a charitable
institution—in short, those who are not
independent.”
And many singled out Jewish people as being
especially unworthy of rights.
And just as the revolutions of 1848 paved
the way for both reforms and conflicts in
the 20th century, this exclusion of Jewish
people from political participation and legal
protection of rights was a harbinger of what
was to come.
Much of that anti-Semitism was focused in
Eastern and Central Europe, but really it
was everywhere.
Ultimately, in Austria, as elsewhere, once
the rebels were disunited, they were easier
to defeat, and they were crushed in Vienna,
Prague and other cities, and then in 1849,
Tsar Nicholas I sent 300,000 troops to finish
off the Hungarians for his Austrian ally.
Around a hundred thousand people were killed
across the Austrian empire in the revolutions
of 1848 and thousands were killed elsewhere,
not to mention the destruction of property
that accompanied what were often massacres.
Guarantees of rights were also rolled back
and some participants were executed, or imprisoned,
or sent into exile.
And it’s normal to wonder whether history
is only the story of death and destruction
and whether the outcomes were worth it.
But consider the Austrian peasants who demanded
and ultimately received an end to centuries
of serfdom.
Imagine knowing that you and your children
and your children’s children will be forced
to live on and work the same land, owing an
endless debt to the same aristocratic family
that you’ll never be able to repay.
Now imagine the end of that cycle.
Imagine being part of the first generation
of people in living memory who could leave.
Was the revolution worth it?
Perhaps for those families, it was.
Thanks 
for watching.
I’ll see you next time.
