HY Final

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) *How he took advantage of the aftermath of the French Revolution to seize power in 1799. The Directory, had been called by some a reaction to the radicalism of Robespierre's phase of the Rev., in dire straits: economy underwater, food shortages, paper money worthless, directors are corrup (open to attack from opponents on left and resurgent right) *When Napoleon comes to power by overthrowing the Directory, ends the Rev. but in many ways tries to keep some of the more beneficial qualities of Rev. going while getting rid of ones he didn't like. Not exactly French -> Corsican, born on that island to descendants of Florentine nobility a few years after France annexed it from previously Italian owners (referred to in early years as Napoleone Buonaparte). *Early age, very serious, into his destiny, willful, demanding, arrogant, but also disciplined, loyal. Doesn't know any French and father has to send him to Autun - learns French and goes to study at a military school with a royal scholarship (thanks LXVI!) Over time, Napoleone tries to ingratiate self into more French society and changes name to more French sounding Napoleon Bonaparte. *Doesn't initially win him over with peers. By 16, in 1785 receives first commission as lieutenant although peers don't like him (speaks with Italian accent and had little money). Portrayed as 5'2 by English detractors in fact 5'6 or even 5'8, perfectly normal height (not short!) Takes solace in reading philosophes like Rousseau during period, but also educates self in great generals of history as part of his continuing military education (Alexander the Great, Caesar, Charlemagne, Frederick TG). *When Rev. breaks out and war is declared, N spends first years on Corsica, engaging in three-way struggle b/t Royalists, Revolutionaries, Corsican nationalists who want independence. *Rises quickly through ranks, becoming captain in 1792 and at same time publishing pro-Rublican pamphlets that come to attention of Robespierre's brother, and this gets him command of the Republican artillery at the siege of Toulon, one of the cities to rise a/g imperial government in 1793 and under occupation of British troops as part of great coalition by other Eu powers a/g the Rev. *Wounded in thigh during battle, but able to drive British out and bring Toulon back to fold. For this, rewarded rank of a brigadier general (rises few ranks in process, 25) and becomes commander of the army of Italy (the Italian states also joined in coalition a/g France). *In Oct. 1795, when Royalists try to overthrow the Directory (excluded from serving in it) and launch insurrection in Paris, N puts down decisively and is rewarded with rank of a major general. So making name for self, heard of in high places. *Meets widow of guillotined general, Josephine de Beauharnais, and falls in love despite six years his senior, marry 1796. Devoted to her (she is a serial adultress). *As Commander of Army of Italy, turns group of undisciplined soldiers into effective fighting force and able to use force to inflict series of defeats upon Austrian forces, able to dictate peace from them in 1797. Cultivating image to his men of being a charming, charismatic man of action - assess a situation quickly and act accordingly. No pushover - hard on his officers (push to limit). Towards rank and file, different - eating with, providing with regular food and clothing. They are fanatically loyal to him. *By 1797 Directory is cultivating him, considered to be a conquering hero by time for his performance in Italy. Given job of preparing an invasion of England(?) - but N knows English navy would never permit this, states France not ready to invade the island, suggest instead invade Egypt, a nominal Ottoman Province which N can use as springboard for threatening British India (several anti-British factions in India that N wants to contact) and hurting Britain indirectly. *Lands with force, fighting first with Mamelukes who rule Egypt, but when British navy under Admiral Horatio Nelson destroy French fleet sent with him, his plans for creating a Fr presence in the Middle East is frustrated. *Invades Palestine and Syria with army, capturing many towns/cities on coast, but fact he's cut off from his lines by having no navy and appearance of bubonic plague among troops makes invasion unsuccessful. Has no qualms about abandoning remnant of his army to plague or capture when he abandons his army and manages safe passage to Paris. *1799 popular enough to engineer a coup d'etat and overthrow Directory, making himself virtual dictator of state. Only 30 years old at time. Once Directory is overthrown, N reforms the government, making changes to constitution that reduces role of elections, with executive power vested in hands of not 5 but 3 consuls. *As First Consul, directly controls entire executive branch of gov. Obscene amount of influence with the legislature (limiting elections helps), appoint members of bureaucracy, controls the army, conducts foreign affairs. In 1802, consul for life and 1804 crowns self not king but Emperor of the French, hence the First Empire (1804-14). *Overthrown the First Republic and replaced it with himself. As well as doing this to sate his large ego, getting rid of opposition he would have from his fellow consuls. New emperor far more demanding and dictatorial than LXIV, XV, XVI.

Alright, today I'm going to talk about Napoleon and how he took advantage of the aftermath of the French Revolution to seize power in 1799. As I said in the last class, the Directory, which has been called by some as a reaction to the radicalism of Robespierre's phase of the Revolution, was in dire straits. The economy is underwater, there are still food shortages, the paper money is worthless, and the directors themselves are pretty corrupt guys who are open to attack both from opponents on the left as well as a resurgent right. When Napoleon comes to power by overthrowing this Directory, he ends the Revolution, but in many ways he tries to keep some of the more beneficial qualities of the Revolution going while getting rid of the ones he doesn't like all that much. Who is Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821). Well, he's not exactly French, he's Corsican, and he's born on that island to descendants of Florentine nobility only a few years after France annexed it from its previously Italian owners (therefore, if anything, Napoleon is more Italian than French, and many refer to him in his early years as Napoleone Buonaparte). From an early age, he's very serious, into his destiny, etc, he's willful, demanding, arrogant, but he's also disciplined and loyal. Oh yeah, he doesn't know any French, and his father has to send him to Autun where he learns French, and then he goes to study at a military school with a royal scholarship (thanks, King Louis!). Over time, Napoleone tries to ingratiate himself more into French society and changes his name to the more French sounding Napoleon Bonaparte. This doesn't initially win him over with his peers, however. By the age of 16 in 1785, he receives his first commission as a lieutentant, although his peers don't like him because he speaks with an Italian accent and has little money. The book says also because he was short, but in actuality Napoleon, portrayed as being around 5 foot 2 by his English detractors, was in fact either 5 foot 6 or even 5 foot 8, which was a perfectly normal height at the time. Napoleon takes solace in reading the philosophes such as Rousseau during this period, but he also educates himself in the great generals of history as part of his continuing military education (all the big ones such as Alexander the Great, Caesar, Charlemagne, and Frederick the Great). When the Revolution breaks out and war is declared, Napoleon, always the opportunist, sees some new opportunities on the rise. Initially, he spends the first years of the Revolution on Corsica, engaging in a three-way struggle between Royalists, Revolutionaries, and Corsican nationalists who want independence. He rises quickly through the ranks, becoming a captain in 1792, and at the same time he's publishing pro-Republican pamphlets that come to the attention of Robespierre's brother, and this gets him the command of the Republican artillery at the siege of Toulon, which was one of the cities to rise against the imperial government in 1793 and was under occupation by British troops as part of the great coalition by other European powers against the Revolution. Napoleon is wounded in the thigh during the battle, but nevertheless is able to drive the British out and bring Toulon back into the fold. For this he is rewarded with the rank of a brigadier general (jumping a few ranks in the process, and he's only 25) and becomes commander of the Army of Italy (the Italian States had also joined in the coalition against France). In October 1795, when Royalists try to overthrow the Directory (they are excluded from serving in it) and launch an insurrection in Paris, Napoleon puts it down decisively, and is rewarded with the rank of a major general. So Napoleon is making a name for himself, and he's heard of in high places. It's during this time he meets the widow of a guillotined general, Josephine de Beauharnais, and falls in love with her despite her being six years his senior, and marries her in 1796. Despite the fact that sometimes she can act the stray cat, Napoleon is devoted to her. As commander of the Army of Italy, Napoleon turns a group of undisciplined soldiers into an effective fighting force and is able to use this force to inflict a series of defeats upon the Austrian forces to the point where he is able to dictate peace to them in 1797. He is cultivating an image to his men of being a charming, charismatic man of action who can assess a situation quickly and act accordingly. However, he's no pushover, and he is hard on his officers, pushing them to the limit. Towards the rank-and-file, however, he's different, eating with them, providing them with regular food and clothing, etc. As a result they are fanatically loyal to him. Napoleon is intelligent, and as I say, has an extreme confidence in himself, where he sees himself as a 'man of destiny,' a military genius, etc. By 1797, the Directory is cultivating him, as he's considered to be a conquering hero by this time for his performance in Italy. He's given the job of preparing an invasion of England, but Napoleon, who knows the English navy would never permit this, states that France is not yet ready to invade the island, and suggests instead that he invade Egypt, a nominal Ottoman Province which Napoleon can use as a springboard for threatening British India (by this time there are several anti-British factions in India that Napoleon wants to contact) and thus hurting Britain indirectly. He lands with a force, fighting first with the Mamelukes who rule Egypt, but when the British navy under Admiral Horatio Nelson destroys the French fleet sent with him, Napoleon's plans for creating a French presence in the Middle East are frustrated. He invades Palestine and Syria with his army, capturing many towns and cities on the coast, but the fact that he's cut off from his lines by having no navy, as well as the appearance in bubonic plague amongst his troops makes the invasion ultimately unsuccessful. He has no qualms about abandoning the remnant of his army to plague or capture when he abandons his army and manages safe passage to Paris. By 1799, he is popular enough to engineer a coup d'état and overthrow the Directory, essentially making himself virtual dictator of the state. He is only 30 years old at the time. Once the Directory is overthrown, Napoleon reforms the government, making changes to the constitution that reduces the role of elections, with executive power now vested in the hands of not 5, but 3 consuls. As First Consul, Napoleon directly controls the entire executive branch of the government. He has an obscene amount of influence with the legislature (limiting elections helps), appoints members of the bureaucracy, controls the army, and conducts foreign affairs. In 1802, he's made consul for life, and in 1804, he crowns himself not king but Emperor of the French, hence the First Empire (1804-1814). So Napoleon has essentially overthrown the First Republic and replaced it with himself. However, as well as doing this to sate his very large ego, he's also getting rid of any opposition he would have from his fellow consuls. In any case, the new emperor is far more demanding and dictatorial than men such as Louis XIV, XV, or XVI had ever been.

*As Emperor, Napoleon's domestic policies attempted to preserve some rights and ideals of French Rev. despite destroying Republic. However, in other cases, sees fit to roll things back. *In 1801, makes peace with Catholic Church. Either agnostic/atheist and completely devoid of faith (except on deathbed, then calls himself a Catholic). Someone who tends to treat religion as it most suits him: in Egypt called self a Muslim, calls self a Catholic, and once said 'If I governed a nation of Jews, I would rebuild Solomon's Temple.' *Knowing France is still overwhelmingly Catholic, makes overtures to work with Pope Pius VII to re-establish Catholic Church in France. Concordat with the Church in 1801 gives pope once again right to depose bishops (though state nominates them). Allows Catholic seminaries to be re-opened; processions held again. However, while many people call N a sellout for coming to terms with Church, pope by working with N has by default recognized the French Rev. as fact! *Pius doesn't get all he wants: Catholic Church not re-established as state religion (only majority religion in France), doesn't get back any former lands confiscated during Rev. Clergy paid by state. While N makes peace with Catholic Church, does so in way that he doesn't completely abandon gains made by Rev. (no state religion, France still has church lands). *Also sees reforming the legal code in France. Before, didn't have a uniform code of law but 300 different legal systems. While previous Revolutionaries have made steps to simplify system, N finalizes this codification, reducing number of law codes to 7 - where the Civil Code (Napoleonic Code) was considered most important. *Preserved many gains made by Rev.: All citizens considered equal before the law, individuals choose own profession, feudal order abolished, religious toleration for all. Property rights protected, employers breathe sigh of relief (trade unions and strikes banned - destablizing factors such as sans-culottes during radical years of Rev.). *However, while he preserves these principles, much more traditionalist even a chauvinist when it comes to the rights of men vs. women. *As Rev. got more radical, saw more rights for women. Easier for husbands and wives to get divorced, father's power over his own family highly curtailed, and all children (including daughters) could inherit property equally. N undoes all this. *Control of fathers over families restored; Divorce while allowed much easier for man to obtain (if a woman is caught cheating, she cannot only be divorced but imprisoned, while man is only guilty if his mistress lives under the same house as his wife!) *Also includes law that when woman is married, money they bring with them becomes property of husbands (no more repaying dowries - feudal practice). Women treated as minors, testimony in courts considered to be less reliable than men. *Also reworks bureaucracy by turning country into powerful centralized governmental machine. During Rev., National Assembly had divided land into 83 departments and replaced nobility, estates that had ruled previously with self-governing assemblies. *Napoleon kept departments but eliminated local assemblies, replaced with prefects - governors appointed by N responsible for supervising local gov. These prefects did not come from localities they oversaw and first loyalty is to central gov. *Also overhauls tax system, making more efficient, where taxes are collected by professionals appointed by the state to deal with individual taxpayers. No tax exemptions granted due to birth, status, etc. *Also accomplished in 1802 what neither Regime or Radical Revolutionaries could; a balanced budget. *In interests of having central gov more involved in economy, establishes Bank of France. N wants bureaucracy run by talanted people and doesn't care whether talent cultivated in either royal or revolutionary circles. Promotion demonstrated on merit, and N even creates new aristocracy based on merit in service to the state. *Between 1808-14, creates 3,263 new nobles (60% military officers, while rest are civil service + local officials); much of nobility drawn from bourgeoisie (middle class). *So is a mixed bag when it comes to preserving work of Rev. While equality is preserved and careers now open to people who had most talent, new aristocracy, protection of property rights, use of conscription for military makes clear not a democracy but a benign despotism. *Despotism increasingly arbitrary over years, example shut down 60/73 newspapers in Fr, insists all manuscripts be subject to gov scrutiny before being published, and state is under supervision of secret police (former Rev. now turned Imperial agent Joseph Fouché) *But those are France's policies... haven't gotten into what he is best at: war and conquest. Wars N faced usually wars between Fr and coalitions (several other nations banding together to try and beat up on Fr). 1. First 'coalition' war was one that began in 1792 and by time N had become First Consul in 1799... (1792-9) 2. Engaged in second coalition war with Russia/Britain/Austria, Manages to acquire peace in 1802 (1799-1802) with these powers, leaving France with number of client territories that included North Sea and Adriatic possessions. However, peace short-lived because Britain won't adhere to it, N views it as some breathing space before next inevitable conflict. France IS growing and N wants it to grow. 3. War flares up again in 1803, when Britiah, Russia, Austria start third coalition war with France. *BIG victory for N, in which completely surrounds and defeats Austrian army at Battle of Ulm (S. Germany, 1805). *Huge Russian/Austrian army at Battle of Austerlitz under Tsar Alexander I. Napoleon though outnumbered, helped by fact Tsar is bad at choosing terrain for battle, able to divide the A/R forces and devestate them. *Austria and Russia down for count. By this time, Prussia which stayed out of war of third coalition joins in, proceeds to hand their a--- to them at Jena and Auerstadt in Oct. 1806. *Russians decide to tag team Prussia and come back into war, promptly sends them back out at Eylau and Friedland in June 1807. Effectively made allied forces come to heel, sees as opportunity to expand his empire more smoothly. And with victories in these battles, able to have large tracts of land come under French rule, either directly or indirectly.

As Emperor, Napoleon's domestic policies attempted to preserve some of the rights and ideals of the French Revolution despite effectively destroying the Republic. However, in other cases, he sees fit to roll things back to a degree. In 1801, for example, he makes peace with the Catholic Church. Here's the thing, Napoleon is basically either an agnostic or an atheist and is completely devoid of any religious faith (except when he was on his deathbed, THEN he calls himself a good Catholic boy...). He's someone who tends to treat religion as it most suits him: in Egypt, he called himself a Muslim, in France, he calls himself a Catholic, and he once said that 'If I governed a nation of Jews, I would rebuild Solomon's Temple.' So basically knowing that France is still overwhelmingly Catholic, he makes overtures to work with Pope Pius VII to re-establish the Catholic Church in France. This Concordat with the Church in 1801 gives the pope once again the right to depose bishops (although the state retains the right to nominate them). It allows Catholic seminaries to be re-opened in France, processions can be held again. However, while many people call Napoleon a sellout for coming to terms with the Church, the pope, by working with Napoleon, has by default recognized the French Revolution as a fact. Moreover, Pius doesn't get all he wants. The Catholic Church is not re-established as the state religion (Napoleon only recognizes it as the majority religion in France), he doesn't get back any former church lands that had been confiscated during the Revolution, and the Catholic clergy is paid by the state (but then again, so is the Protestant clergy). Therefore, while Napoleon makes peace with the Catholic Church, he does so in such a way that he does not completely abandon the gains made by the Revolution (there is no state religion, France still has those Church lands, etc.). Napoleon also sees to reforming the legal code in France. Before him, France didn't have a uniform code of laws but rather 300 different legal systems (sheesh! Almost as many systems as they have types of cheese, wine, and cigarette brands!). While previous Revolutionaries have made steps to simplify the system, Napoleon finalizes this codification, reducing the number of law codes to seven, where the Civil Code (aka the Napoleonic code) was considered to be the most important. The Napoleonic Code preserved many of the gains made by the Revolution: all citizens are considered equal before the law, individuals can choose their own professions, the feudal order is abolished, and there is religious toleration for all. Property rights are protected, while employers can breathe a sigh of relief in that trade unions and strikes are banned (probably a response to destabilizing factors such as the sans-culottes during the radical years of the Revolution). However, while Napoleon preserves these principles, he is much more of a traditionalist, even a chauvinist when it comes to the rights of men vs. women. See, as the Revolution got more radical, you saw a lot more rights for women appearing. It was easier for husbands and wives to get divorced, the father's power over his own family was highly curtailed, and all children (including daughters) could inherit property equally. Napoleon undoes all of this, and more. Control of fathers over their families was restored. Divorce, while still allowed, is much easier for the man to obtain than the woman (for example, if a woman is caught cheating, she cannot only be divorced by her husband, but even imprisoned, while the man is only guilty of adultery if his mistress lives under the same house as his wife!). Napoleon also includes a law that when women are married, the money they bring with them into the marriage becomes the property of their husbands (no more repaying dowries, because don't you know that's a feudal practice and so passé). Women are also treated as minors, and their testimony in courts is considered to be less reliable than men. There's a reason that Orwell, when writing Animal Farm, named the pig Napoleon. Napoleon also reworks the bureaucracy in France by turning the country into a powerful centralized governmental machine. During the Revolution, the National Assembly had divided the land into 83 departments and replaced the nobility, estates, etc. that had ruled previously with self-governing assemblies. While Napoleon kept the departments, he eliminated the local assemblies and replaced them with prefects, governors appointed by Napoleon who were responsible for supervising local government. These prefects, however, do not come from the localities they oversee, and their first loyalty is to the central government. Napoleon also overhauls the tax system, making it more efficient, where taxes are collected by professionals appointed by the state to deal with individual taxpayers. No tax exemptions are granted due to birth, status, etc. Napoleon also accomplishes in 1802 what neither the Ancien Regime or the Radical Revolutionaries could not: a balanced budget. Moreover, in the interests of having the central government more involved in the economy, he establishes the Bank of France. Napoleon wants his bureaucracy to be run by talented people, and doesn't really care whether that talent had been cultivated in either royal or revolutionary circles. Promotion is demonstrated on merit, and Napoleon even creates a new aristocracy based on once merit in service to the state. Betweeen 1808 and 1814, Napoleon creates 3263 new nobles (60 percent of them are military officers, while the rest are civil service and local officials); much of this nobility is drawn from the bourgeoisie. So Napoleon is a mixed bag when it comes to preserving the work of the Revolution. While equality was preserved and careers were now open to the people who had the most talent, the new aristocracy, the protection of property rights, and the use of conscription for the military makes it clear that this is not a democracy but rather a benign despotism. Napoleon's despotism, however, becomes increasingly arbitrary over the years, and he, for example, shut down 60 of France's 73 newspapers, insists that all manuscripts be subject to government scrutiny before being published, and the state is under the supervision of a secret police (headed by none other than that former Revolutionary now turned Imperial agent, Joseph Fouché). But those are France's domestic policies. We haven't even gotten into what Napoleon was best at: war and conquest. Now, the wars that Napoleon had faced are usually wars that are fought between France and 'coalitions' (that is, several other nations banding together to try and beat up on France). The first 'coalition' war was the one that began in 1792, and by the time that Napoleon had become First Consul in 1799, France is engaged in a second 'coalition' war with Russia, Britain, and Austria. Napoleon manages to acquire a peace in 1802 with these powers, leaving France with a number of client territories that included North Sea as well as Adriatic possessions. However, the peace is short-lived, mainly because Britain won't adhere to it, and Napoleon views it as some breathing space before the next inevitable conflict. Because France IS growing, and Napoleon wants it to grow. War flares up again in 1803, when Britain, Russia, and Austria start a third 'coalition' war with France. This war was a big victory for Napoleon, in which he completely surrounds and defeats an Austrian army at the battle of Ulm in Southern Germany in 1805, as well as a huge Russian/Austrian Army under Tsar Alexander I at Austerlitz. Napoleon, though outnumbered, is helped by the fact that the Tsar is particularly bad at choosing the terrain for the battle, and Napoleon is able to divide the Austrian and Russian forces, and devastates them. Austria and Russia are down for the count. By this time, Prussia, which stayed out of the War of the third coalition, joins in, and Napoleon proceeds to hand their asses to them at Jena and Auerstadt in October 1806. The Russians then decide to tag team Prussia and come back into the war, and Napoleon promptly sends them back out at Eylau and Friedland in June 1807. By that time, Napoleon has effectively made the allied forces come to heel, and he sees this as an opportunity to create a new order to allow his empire to expand more smoothly. And with victories in these battles, Napoleon is able to have large tracts of land come under French rule, either directly or indirectly.

*Bad things continue to happen to revolutionaries in other places when uprising occurs in Italy, when republicans led by Giuseppe Mazzini, leader of the Italian Risorgimento (Resurgence) decide to try to set up a unified Italian Republic. *Mazzini founded Young Italy in 1831 to do just this, encouraging fellow Italians in his The Duties of Man to think not of regions from whence they came but instead think of Italy. Italian women take up his call, and he has support from wealthy Italian aristocrat, Cristina Belgioioso, who initially persecuted by the Austrian authorities in Italy for her views but had fled to Paris to start newspaper supporting the cause. *Their dreams seem to come true when various Italian states rise up in 1848. Begins in Sicily and spreads north when ruler after ruler proceed to agree to constitutions for his respective people. *Lombardy and Venetia rebel a/g Austrians, and Venetians declare the Republic of Venice (had existed before but overthrown by Napoleon). King of Piedmont, Charles Albert, supports this and raises army to fight Austrian domination, but his invasion of Lombardy fails, and by 1849 the Austrians regain control of both of those north Italian lands. *Mazzini tries to set up a Republic of Rome by attempting to neutralize the pope, Pius IX, but Fr forces come to pope's aid and put him in charge of Rome and Papal States. After this, various rulers of Italy rescind promises of a constitution, and only Piedmont keeps its constitution. So initially are widespread uprisings a/g conservative legitimist govs throughout 1848 by liberals and nationalists who were able to force their govs to initially accept the drawing up liberal constitutions. However, these successes are short-lived, as victory soon turns into failure or disaster. Why? 1) Unity of the revolutionaries had helped the revolutions to happen, but as soon as it came to figuring out what to do next, the revolutionaries become divided between moderates and radicals. Radicals don't think the moderates are going far enough, and the moderates are freaking out and running back to more conservative interests to keep radicals at bay. Causes disunity! 2) Nationalism that caused some of these revolutions had helped them get to good start, but divisions among nationalities most notably those in the AE had caused their unity on cause of self-gov for each group to fall apart. While Austrians do grant some autonomy to the Hungarians, they are at same time able to refuse same thing to Slovene, Croat, Czech, Serb pops. Instead of joining together to fight empire, ethnic minorities are too busy fighting e-other. Indeed Austria able to continue to control Hungary despite latter's autonomy by playing off its ethic minorities (Slovenes, Croats) a/g the Hungarians, thus causing Hungarians to come running back to Austrians.

Bad things continue to happen to revolutionaries in other places when uprisings occur in Italy, when republicans led by Giuseppe Mazzini, leader of the Italian Risorgimento (Resurgence) decide to try to set up a unified Italian Republic. Mazzini founded Young Italy in 1831 to do just this, encouraging his fellow Italians in his The Duties of Man to think not of the regions from whence they came but instead to think of Italy. Italian women take up Mazzini's call, and he has support from a wealthy Italian aristocrat, Cristina Belgioioso, who initially was persecuted by the Austrian authorities in Italy for her views but who had fled to Paris to start a newspaper supporting the cause. Their dreams seem to come true when the various Italian states rise up in 1848. It begins in Sicily, and spreads northward when ruler after rule proceed to agree to constitutions for his respective people. Lombardy and Venetia rebel against the Austrians, and the Venetians declare the Republic of Venice (this had existed before but was overthrown by Napoleon back in the late 1700s). The king of Piedmont, Charles Albert, supports this and raises an army to fight Austrian domination, but his invasion of Lombardy fails, and by 1849 the Austrians regain control of both of those north Italian lands. Mazzini tries to set up a Republic of Rome by attempting to neutralize the Pope, Pius IX, but French forces come to the pope's aid and once again put him in charge of Rome and the Papal States. After this, the various rulers of Italy rescind their promises of a constitution, and only Piedmont keeps its constitution. So initially, there are widespread uprisings against the conservative legitimist governments throughout 1848 by liberals and nationalists who were able to force their governments to initially accept the drawing up of liberal constitutions. However, these successes are short-lived, as victory soon turns into failure or disaster for each of these revolutions. Why? Two reasons: 1) the unity of the revolutionaries had helped the revolutions to happen, but as soon as it came to figuring out what to do next, the revolutionaries become divided between moderates and radicals. The radicals don't think the moderates are going far enough, and the moderates are freaking out and running back to the more conservative interests to keep the radicals at bay. This causes disunity, and ultimately defeat. Secondly, the nationalism that caused some of these revolutions had helped them to get a good start, but the divisions among nationalities, most notably those in the Austrian empire, had caused their unity on the cause of self-government for each group to ultimately fall apart. While the Austrians do grant some autonomy to the Hungarians, they are at the same time able to refuse the same thing to their Slovene, Croat, Czech, and Serb populations. Instead of joining together to fight the empire, these ethnic minorities were too busy fighting each other. Indeed, Austria was able to continue to control Hungary despite the latter's autonomy by playing off its ethnic minorities (Slovenes, Croats, etc) against the Hungarians, thus causing the Hungarians to come running back to the Austrians. Divide and Conquer, it's a tactic that's an oldie but a goodie. But then again, conservatives are past masters at oldies....

*By 1866, shogunate decided to take drastic measures to modernization. Army began to be updated, Japanese military officers sent to Eu naval academics to learn the Eu way of naval fighting. More ships purchased, and Eu advisers hired to come to modernize the Japanese military. *At same time, Japanese trying to up international visibility, even sent delegation to Worlds Fair in Paris in 1867. For shogunate, however, too late and in last days of 1867, emperor Meiji, upon his succession, issued edicts to dissolve the shogunate, and move the imperial seat from Kyoto to Edo (traditional seat of shogun). *Not a bloodless coup in later years! Action resulted in the Boshin War between daimyo who supported the shogun and the Imperial Japanese forces who wished to solidify Meiji's position. The idea of a 'romantic mass suicide' of the samurai in the battle a la The Last Samurai is more attuned to a rebellion of the 1870s, Satsume Rebellion, when former daimyo were afraid of losing their privileges and influence to the Imperial Gov. War lasted a year and a half, samurai fought on both sides, and both sides had access to firearms (both bolt action and repeater rifles), warships, and artillery. On the other hand, neither side uniformly equipped (for every rifle division both sides had, also had samurai with traditional weaponry). What allowed the Meiji to win was the forces of the Tokugawa Shogunate were too divided and spread across the country, meaning the Imperial Gov would win by 1869. The Meiji Restoration ended the shogunate and created a Constitutional Monarchy for Japan. New gov issued the Five Charter Oath in 1868, called for: 1. Establishment of deliberative assemblies 2. Involvement of all classes carrying out state affairs 3. Revocation of sumptuary laws (restrictions on cosumption) and class restrictions on employment 4. Replacement of 'evil customs' with the 'just laws of nature' 5. An international search for knowledge to strengthen the foundation of imperial rule Implicit in the Charter Oath was to end exlusive political rule by the bakufu (shogun's direct admin including officers), and move toward more democratic participation in gov. To implement the Charter Oath, short-lived constitution with 11 articles drawn up in June 1868. Besides providing for new Council of State, legislative bodies, and systems of ranks for nobles and officials, also limited office tenure to four years, allowed public balloting, provided new taxation system, and ordered new local admin rules. *The Meiji gov assured the foreign powers it would follow the old treaties negotiated by the bakufu and announced it would act in accordance with international law. Mutsuhito, reign until 1912, selected a new reign title - Meiji or Enlightened Rule - to mark the beginning of a new era of Japanese history. Further dramatize the new order, the capital was relocated from Kyoto where it had been since 794 to Tokyo (Eastern Capital), the new name for Edo. Move critical for the consolidation of the new regime, most daimyos voluntarily surrendered their land and census records to the Emperor in the abolition of the Han system, symbolizing land and people under Emperor's jurisdiction. *Confirmed in their hereditary positions, daimyo became governors and central gov assumed administrative expenses and paid samurai stipends. The Han replaced by prefectures in 1871, and authority continued to flow to the national gov. Officials from favored former Han such as Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, and Hizen staffed the new ministries. Formerly old court nobles, and lower-ranking but more radical samurai replaced bakufu appointees and daimyo as a new ruling class appeared. *Accompanying new gov was quickest industrialization in all of history. In 1870, with decision to industrialize on a wide scale, Meiji gov employed 3k foreign experts to teach in subjects of science, English, engineering, military affairs, while at same time Japanese students sent abroad to Eu and Am to be up to date. *The gov built r-roads, improved roads, inaugerated a land reform program to prepare country for further development. It inaugerated a new Western-based education system for all young people, sent thousands of students to the US and Eu, and hired more than 3k Westerners to teach modern science, mathematics, tech, foreign languages in Japan (O-yatoi gaikokujin) *In 1871, group of Japanese politicians known as the Iwakura Mission toured Eu and US to learn western ways. Result was deliberate state led insutrialization policy to enable Japan to quickly catch up. The Bank of Japan, founded in 1877, used taxes to fund model steel and textile factories. *The Zaibatsu and gov guided the nation, borrowing tech from West. Japan gradually took control of much of Asia's market for manufactured goods, beginning with textiles. The econ structure became mercantilistic, importing raw materials and exporting finished products - reflection of Japan's relative poverty in raw materials. *Japan emerged from the Tokugawa-Tennō (Keiō-Meiji) transition in 1868 as the first Asian industrialized nation. Domestic commercial activities and limited foreign trade had met the demands for material culture until the Keiō period, but the modernized Meiji period had radically different requirements. Meiji rulers embraced concept of market economy and adopted British and North American forms of free enterprise capitalism. Private sector - in a nation with an abundance of aggressive entrepreneurs - welcomed change. *Economic reforms included a unified modern currency based on the yen, banking, commercial and tax laws, stock exchanges, and a communications network. Establishment of a modern institutional framework conducive to an advanced capitalist economy took time, but completed by 1890s. By this time, gov had largely relinquished direct control of modernization process, for budgetary reasons. *Many of former daimyo, whose pensions had been paid in lump sun, benefited through investments made in emerging industries. Those who had been informally involved in foreign trade before the Meiji Restoration also flourished. Old bakufu-serving firms clung to their traditional ways failed in new business environment. *Gov initially involved in economic modernization providing number of model factories to facilitate the transition to the modern period. After first 20 years of Meiji period, industrial economy expanded rapidly until about 1920 with inputs of advanced Western tech and large private investments. Stimulated by wars and cautious economic planning, emerged from WW1 as a major industrial nation. *In 1885, Meiji gov sponsored a telegraph system throughout J, situating telegraphs in all major J cities. So unlike Qing dynasty, Meiji gov does things differently in face of new developments than fall to foreign powers. Japan able to become an imperialist power in own right. Defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese War over influence in Korea in 1895 made one of the premier military powers in Asia and Pacific. Ten years later, suprises world by kicking Russians butt in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese War (1905), and Russians beaten so badly Teddy Roosevelt has to moderate the peace, giving Japan complete control over Korea, power on equal standing to that of Europeans.

By 1866, the shogunate decided to take drastic measures towards modernization. The army began to be updated, and Japanese military officers were sent to European naval academies to learn the European way of naval fighting. More ships were purchased, and European advisers were hired to come in to modernize the Japanese military. At the same time, the Japanese were trying to up their international visibility, and even sent a delegation to the Worlds Fair in Paris in 1867. For the shogunate, however, it was too late, and in the last days of 1867, the emperor Meiji, upon his succession, issued edicts to dissolve the shogunate, and move the imperial seat from Kyoto to Edo (the traditional seat of the shogun). While some historians tried to paint this as a bloodless coup in later years, it was clearly not the case. Indeed, this action resulted in the Boshin War between the daimyo who supported the shogun, and the Imperial Japanese forces who wished to solidify Meiji's position. Now, the movies have it where the Boshin War is basically a bunch of samurai going on a suicidal errand to get themselves killed by the ultra-modern Meiji who have this Bioshock steampunk style technology that finishes off the shogunate supporters pretty quickly. This was also not the case, and the idea of a "romantic mass suicide" of the samurai in battle a la The Last Samurai is more attuned to a rebellion of the 1870s the Satsume Rebellion, when former daimyo were afraid of losing their privileges and influence to the Imperial government). The war lasted a year and a half, samurai fought on both sides, and both sides had access to firearms (including both bolt action and repeater rifles), warships, and artillery. On the other hand, neither side was uniformly equipped (for every rifle division both sides had, they also had samurai with traditional weaponry). What allowed the Meiji to ultimately win was that the forces of the Tokugawa Shogunate were too divided and spread across the country, meaning that the Imperial government would end up winning it by 1869. The "Meiji Restoration" ended the shogunate, and created a Constitutional Monarchy for Japan. The new government issued the Five Charter Oath in 1868, which called for: 1. Establishment of deliberative assemblies; 2. Involvement of all classes in carrying out state affairs; 3. Revocation of sumptuary laws and class restrictions on employment; 4. Replacement of "evil customs" with the "just laws of nature"; and 5. An international search for knowledge to strengthen the foundations of imperial rule. Implicit in the Charter Oath was an end to exclusive political rule by the bakufu (a shōgun's direct administration including officers), and a move toward more democratic participation in government. To implement the Charter Oath, a rather short-lived constitution with eleven articles was drawn up in June 1868. Besides providing for a new Council of State, legislative bodies, and systems of ranks for nobles and officials, it limited office tenure to four years, allowed public balloting, provided for a new taxation system, and ordered new local administrative rules. The Meiji government assured the foreign powers that it would follow the old treaties negotiated by the bakufu and announced that it would act in accordance with international law. Mutsuhito, who was to reign until 1912, selected a new reign title—Meiji, or Enlightened Rule—to mark the beginning of a new era in Japanese history. To further dramatize the new order, the capital was relocated from Kyoto, where it had been situated since 794, to Tokyo (Eastern Capital), the new name for Edo. In a move critical for the consolidation of the new regime, most daimyōs voluntarily surrendered their land and census records to the Emperor in the abolition of the Han system, symbolizing that the land and people were under the Emperor's jurisdiction. Confirmed in their hereditary positions, the daimyo became governors, and the central government assumed their administrative expenses and paid samurai stipends. The han were replaced with prefectures in 1871, and authority continued to flow to the national government. Officials from the favored former han, such as Satsuma, Chōshū, Tosa, and Hizen staffed the new ministries. Formerly old court nobles, and lower-ranking but more radical samurai, replaced bakufu appointees and daimyo as a new ruling class appeared. Accompanying this new government was arguably the quickest industrialization in all of history. In 1870, with the decision to industrialize on a wide scale, the Meiji government employed 3000 foreign experts to teach in the subjects of science, English, engineering, and military affairs, while at the same time Japanese students were sent abroad to Europe and America to be up-to-date on the latest, as it were. The government built railroads, improved roads, and inaugurated a land reform program to prepare the country for further development. It inaugurated a new Western-based education system for all young people, sent thousands of students to the United States and Europe, and hired more than 3,000 Westerners to teach modern science, mathematics, technology, and foreign languages in Japan (O-yatoi gaikokujin). In 1871, a group of Japanese politicians known as the Iwakura Mission toured Europe and the US to learn western ways. The result was a deliberate state led industrialisation policy to enable Japan to quickly catch up. The Bank of Japan, founded in 1877, used taxes to fund model steel and textile factories. Hand in hand, the zaibatsu and government guided the nation, borrowing technology from the West. Japan gradually took control of much of Asia's market for manufactured goods, beginning with textiles. The economic structure became very mercantilistic, importing raw materials and exporting finished products—a reflection of Japan's relative poverty in raw materials. Japan emerged from the Tokugawa-Tennō (Keiō-Meiji) transition in 1868 as the first Asian industrialized nation. Domestic commercial activities and limited foreign trade had met the demands for material culture until the Keiō period, but the modernized Meiji period had radically different requirements. From the onset, the Meiji rulers embraced the concept of a market economy and adopted British and North American forms of free enterprise capitalism. The private sector—in a nation with an abundance of aggressive entrepreneurs—welcomed such change. Economic reforms included a unified modern currency based on the yen, banking, commercial and tax laws, stock exchanges, and a communications network. Establishment of a modern institutional framework conducive to an advanced capitalist economy took time, but was completed by the 1890s. By this time, the government had largely relinquished direct control of the modernization process, primarily for budgetary reasons. Many of the former daimyo, whose pensions had been paid in a lump sum, benefited greatly through investments they made in emerging industries. Those who had been informally involved in foreign trade before the Meiji Restoration also flourished. Old bakufu-serving firms that clung to their traditional ways failed in the new business environment. The government initially was involved in economic modernization, providing a number of "model factories" to facilitate the transition to the modern period. After the first twenty years of the Meiji period, the industrial economy expanded rapidly until about 1920 with inputs of advanced Western technology and large private investments. Stimulated by wars and through cautious economic planning, Japan emerged from World War I as a major industrial nation. In 1885, the Meiji government sponsored a telegraph system, throughout Japan, situating the telegraphs in all major Japanese cities at the time. So, unlike the Qing Dynasty, the Meji government does things differently in the face of new developments rather than fall to foreign powers. In doing so, Japan was able to become an imperialist power in its own right. Its defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese war over influence in Korea in 1895 made it one of the premiere military powers in Asia and the Pacific. Ten years later, it surprises the world by kicking Russian arse in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese war, and the Russians are beaten so badly that Teddy Roosevelt has to step in to moderate the peace, giving Japan complete control of Korea (MUCH to the Koreans' chagrin...seriously, the Japanese were complete bastards to the Koreans), and making it a power on pretty much equal standing with that of the Europeans.

*Events including the unifications of Italy and Germany and the rise of the French Third Republic and Bismarck's chancellorship, coincided with period of colonization by Eu powers of Africa and parts of Asia. Certainly a Eu presence on these continents for a few centuries, in the 19th especially by the 1880s that such great colonization intensified to the point that Eu powers were competing with one another to grab some land. Most Eu powers at this time possessed some sort of colonial holdings, with Britain being the most paramount of them, possessing an empire 'on which the sun never set.' *A few reasons for this 'New Imperialism' 1) After 1871, Eu had a number of competitive nation-states who all wanted to be considered Great Powers. Period when nationalism dominated, encouraged competition between European powers. With this competition, many countries sent armies/navies overseas to acquire colonies to use to acquire ports for their navies (coaling stations for ships). *While neophyte powers like Germany and Italy wanted a 'place in the sun,' (Kaiser Wilhelm II), and tried to set up colonies in Africa and Asia, Britain wanted to expand its colonies to protect its interests from other Eu powers (France to do this too, taking over large amount of areas of Sahara Desert not for economic reasons, to have buffer to protect its more important colonies like Algeria). *Nationalism of these countries played a role in the desire for colonies, and to not have a colonial empire was seen as weakness, or that one's nation was not considered as 'great' as another. Otto von Bismarck who at first opposed colonies in Afr/Asia, stated all this colonial business is a sham but we need it for elections! 2) The perceived 'Social Darwinism' that had emerged (reason for empire building). Social Darwinists put forth belief that only the strong survive, and their actions reflected a struggle between nations. Many SD injected a racial aspect into their outlook, arguing due to the advances of 'white' countries (tech, ideas of superior sophistication) that it was their duty to dominate the 'black' or 'brown' or 'yellow' countries to keep them in state of inferiority if the white man were to survive. 3) Others emphasized the actions of the Eu's creating colonies in Afr/Asia were humanitarian in nature, these colonies were there to 'civilize' the native people, as the Eu thought it be their moral responsibility. There were SOME genuine good intentions behind New Imperialism. However, may just been a rationalization used by many of the more idealistic colonizers to justify their actions. 4) At the Berlin Conference of 1884, organized by Bismarck to have the Eu powers agree on a 'scramble for Africa' to see who would get what lands as colonies, served another major purpose, which was to assert Eu control of the continent to curve the prevalence of the Islamic Slave Trade. 5) Economic: Many raw materials that weren't present in Western countries (rubber, oil, tin) were in areas of Africa/Asia. Many countries saw that taking over a region for its resources meant cutting any middlemen, meaning they could directly access these goods, and with an excess of capital coming out of these countries thanks to industrialists + bankers, there was money to be made via development of these underdeveloped areas. Economic imperialism as well as political imperialism. So, Afr and Asia became two main targets of imperialists. Britain *Little interest in Africa for the first eight decades of the 19th. Until about 1870, only 10% of all Africa under Eu control. While the Fr had seized control of Algerian coast in 1830, merely an area for military bases and did not have any use for Fr civilians. After losing its major colony of Brazil, the Portuguese tried to compensate for this by extending their territories in now Angola and Mozambique. Dutch settlers (sponsored by DEIC) had ben in what is now South Africa since 1600s, founding the Cape Colony in 1652. Until the 1850s, British had little interest in Africa, except to exercise their influence to either mitigate or outlaw the slave trade. *Britain's entry into Africa had more to do with protecting its trade routes to India, which it had an interest in since the mid-1700s. As Napoleon had taken over the Netherlands during reign, the Br feared Dutch colonies overseas might be used to hamper their trade routes to places like India. Consequently, seized the Dutch Cape Colony in 1806 in what is now South Africa and began to settle it. The Dutch Farmers who settled there previously, known as Boers, did not get on well with the British and went north and east of Cape Town to found the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, and great tension existed between the two groups. *Into this milieu (environment) appeared Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), who came to that land initially for health reasons (consumption (tuberculosis) ran in the family, so it was thought Rhodes would be better suited in a warmer climate). Rhodes in many ways is the archetype of the 19th century British imperialist (not a good thing)! *After attending Oxford University, came back to South Africa and started out as a planter on his brother's farm. Rhodes branched out into mining after some reversals on his brother's cotton farm (cotton isn't suitable for growing in SA). Managed over the years to own controlling interests in the diamond mines and fruit farming for export back to Britain. As a result, able to found the De Beers mining company and the Rhodes Fruit Farm interest. Rhodes became more interested into entering SA politics, which he did in 1880 when he became a member of the Cape Parliament. *Rhodes used his growing political clout to cement his influence in the Cape Colony, worked to maintain a monopoly on Eu power in the area by helping to get laws passed to treat the black population as minors, almost completely disenfranchising them from Cape politics (also got several laws passed to eject blacks from their lands to make those lands available for industrial development). *At the same time, Rhodes made sure to stay friendly with British authorities, gave him an edge when negotiating for mining and farming rights with local African chieftans. Also uses his clout to found the British South Africa Company, which he hoped to use to expand further north, taking control of the gold fields there. He subdues the local population in the Matabele Wars and creates new British colonies there that come to collectively be called Rhodesia. All part of grand plan to create a railway from 'The Cape to Cairo' (Egypt only nominally part of the OE, had come increasingly under Br influence), though this project was never realized. *Rhodes quite the white supremacist, believed the idea that Anglo-Saxon peoples were the most superior of all in the world, and envisioned time when all of the colonies of the British Empire would have a seat in Parliament. Also believed the US would rejoin the Empire, and partly because of this belief sets up the Rhodes Scholarship which allowed international study at Oxford (he believed that study at Oxford could create a class of 'philosopher kings' who would see the benefits of British rule and culture, and countries like the US would want to rejoin the empire). *Where Rhodes went wrong (along with being a racial imperialist) was the belief that British colonies should run their own affairs, rather than be administered by bureaucrats from London (as well as believing in self-rule for SA, actually used a lot of money to fund Irish nationalist activity). *Caused him to act more independently of London than the gov there would have liked. As Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, came into regular conflict with the Dutch Boer population in Transvaal, many of whom were sitting on lands he wanted to acquire for his own, and who were less than sympathetic to mining interests in the region. *When he tried to have Cape forces launch a raid (Jameson Raid) into Transvaal territory with the aim of overthrowing the Boer gov, it failed. The British gov then forced Rhodes to resign for launching this raid without their approval. However, damage already done and the Boers launched a guerilla war a/g British forced called the Second Boer War (1899-1902).

Events such as the Unifications of Italy and Germany, as well as the rise of the French Third Republic and Bismarck's chancellorship, coincided with a new period of colonization by European powers of Africa as well as parts of Asia. While there was certainly a European presence on these continents for a few centuries, it was in the 19th century, especially by the 1880s, that such colonization intensified to the point that European powers were competing with one another to grab some land. Consequently, most European powers at this time possessed some sort of colonial holdings, with Britain being the most paramount of them, possessing an empire "on which the sun never set." There were a few reasons for the "New Imperialism." One of them was the fact that, after 1871, Europe had a number of competitive nation-states who all wanted to be considered "Great Powers." This was a period when Nationalism dominated, and encouraged competition between the European powers. With this competition, many countries sent their armies and navies overseas to acquire colonies to use to acquire ports for their navies (coaling stations for ships, etc.). While neophyte powers such as Germany and Italy wanted, as Kaiser Wilhelm II put it, a "place in the sun," and tried to set up colonies in Africa and Asia, Britain expanded its colonies mainly to protect its interests from other European powers (France was known to do this, too, taking over a large amount of areas of the Sahara Desert not for economic reasons, but rather to have a buffer to protect its more important colonies, such as Algeria). Indeed, nationalism of these countries played a role in the desire for colonies, and to not have a colonial empire was seen as weakness, or that one's nation was not considered to be as "great" as another. Otto von Bismarck, who at first opposed colonies in Africa and Asia, stated that "all this colonial business is a sham, but we need it for elections!" Another reason for empire building was the perceived "Social Darwinism" that had emerged. Social Darwinists put forth the belief that "only the strong survive," and their actions reflected a struggle between nations. Indeed, many Social Darwinists injected a racial aspect into their outlook, arguing that, due to the advances of "white" countries (technology, ideas of superior sophistication, etc.), that it was their duty to dominate the "black" or "brown," or "yellow" countries, to keep them in a state of inferiority if the white man were to survive. Others emphasized that the actions of the Europeans creating colonies in Africa and Asia were humanitarian in nature, and that these colonies were there to "civilize" the native peoples, as the Europeans thought it to be their "moral responsibility." Indeed, there were some genuine good intentions behind the New Imperialism. However, this may have just been a rationalization used by many of the more idealistic colonizers to justify their actions. Nevertheless, it should be said that at the Berlin Conference of 1884, organized by Bismarck to have the European powers agree on a "scramble for Africa" to see who would get what lands as colonies, served another major purpose, which was to assert European control of the continent in order to curb the prevalence of the Islamic Slave Trade. Another reason for this New Imperialism was economic. Many raw materials that were not present in Western countries (rubber, oil, tin, etc.)were in areas of Africa and Asia. Therefore, many countries saw that taking over a region for its resources meant cutting any middle men, meaning that they could directly access these goods, and with an excess of capital coming out of these countries thanks to industrialists and bankers meant that there was money to be made via development of these underdeveloped areas. So there was economic imperialism as well as political imperialism. Thus Africa and Asia became the two main targets of imperialists. We'll discuss the European powers in Africa first. And amongst those European powers, we'll discuss Britain and its colonies first. With regards to Africa, there had been little interest in it for the first eight decades of the 19th century. Until about 1870, only 10 percent of all Africa was under European control. While the French had seized control of the Algerian coast in 1830, it was merely an area for military bases and did not have any use for French civilians. After losing its major colony of Brazil, the Portuguese tried to compensate for this by extending their territories in what is now Angola and Mozambique. Dutch settlers (sponsored by the Dutch East India company) had been in what is now South Africa since the 1600s, founding the Cape Colony in 1652. Until the 1850s, the British had little interest in Africa, except to exercise their influence to either mitigate or outlaw the slave trade. Indeed, Britain's entry into Africa had more to do with protecting its trade routes to India, which it had an interest in since the mid-1700s. As Napoleon had taken over the Netherlands during his reign, the British feared that Dutch colonies overseas might be used to hamper their trade routes to places such as India. Consequently, they seized the Dutch Cape colony in 1806 in what is now South Africa and began to settle it. The Dutch Farmers who were settled there previously, known as Boers, did not get on well with the British and went north and east of Cape Town to found the Orange Free State as well as the Transvaal, and great tension existed between the two groups. Into this milieu appeared Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), who came to that land initially for health reasons (consumption ran in the family, so it was thought that Rhodes would be better served in a warmer climate). Rhodes is in many ways the archetype of the 19th century British imperialist, so some attention should be given to him. Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) After attending Oxford University, Rhodes came back to South Africa and started out as a planter on his brother's farm. Rhodes, however, branched out into mining after some reversals on his brother's cotton farm (cotton isn't suitable for growing in South Africa). In doing so, he managed over the years to own controlling interests in the diamond mines as well as fruit farming for export back to Britain. As a result, Cecil Rhodes was able to found both the De Beers mining company as well as the Rhodes Fruit Farm interest. As well as this Rhodes became more and more interested into entering South African politics, which he did in 1880 when he became a member of the Cape Parliament. The Cape Colony, Transvaal, and Orange Free States. Rhodes used his growing political clout to cement his influence in the Cape Colony, and worked to maintain a monopoly on European power in the area by helping to get laws passed to effectively treat the black population as minors, thus almost completely disenfranchising them from Cape politics (he also got several laws passed to eject blacks from their lands to make those lands available for industrial development). At the same time, Rhodes made sure to stay friendly with British authorities, which gave him an edge when negotiating for mining and farming rights with local African chieftans. He also uses this clout to found the British South Africa Company, which he hoped to use to expand further north, taking control of the gold fields there. He subdues the local population in the Matabele Wars, and effectively creates new British colonies there that come to collectively be called Rhodesia. This is all part of a grand plan he had to create a railway from "The Cape to Cairo" (Egypt by this time was only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, and had come increasingly under British influence), although such a project was never realized by him. Rhodes (quite the white supremacist) believed in the idea that the Anglo-Saxon peoples were the most superior of all in the world, and envisioned a time when all of the colonies of the British Empire would have a seat in Parliament. He also believed that the United States would rejoin the Empire, and partly because of this belief, Rhodes set up the Rhodes Scholarship which allowed international study at Oxford University (he believed that study at Oxford could create a class of "philosopher kings" who would then see the benefits of British rule and culture, and countries like the U.S. would want to rejoin the empire!). Where Rhodes went wrong (well, along with being a racist imperialist!) was his belief that British colonies should run their own affairs, rather than be administered by bureaucrats from London (indeed, as well as believing in self-rule for South Africa, he actually used a lot of his money to fund Irish nationalist activities). This caused him to act much more independently of London than the government there would have liked. As Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, Rhodes came into regular conflict with the Dutch Boer population in Transvaal, many of whom were sitting on lands that Rhodes wanted to acquire for his own, and who were less than sympathetic to mining interests in the region. When he tried to have Cape forces launch a raid (referred to as the Jameson Raid) into Transvaal territory with the aim of overthrowing the Boer government, it failed. The British government then forced Rhodes to resign for launching this raid without their approval. However, the damage was already done, and the Boers launched a guerilla war against British forces called the Second Boer War (1899-1902).

2) France: In 1814, Louis of Provence (LXVI's younger brother) becomes Louis XVIII (1814-24). Not a fool, knows he can't go acting like an absolute monarch. Accepts that France has changed, allows for Napoleonic Code to continue, with recognition of equality before the law. Also property rights of people who have seized lands during the Rev. are protected. Gov is one in which king is the executive authority, with a bicameral legislature made up of the Chamber of Peers (chosen by king) and Chamber of Deputies (elected by ~100k wealthy people). *NOT a democracy but a bit more reform minded than the gov of LXIV. L's attempts at moderation (likes it or not) nevertheless opposed by liberals eager to institute more revolutionary reforms and ultraroyalists who are critical of king's compromising nature; want things the way they were before FR, with privileged aristocracy and restoration of Catholic church as influential body. *Ultraroyalists get upper hand when in 1824 LXVIII dies, younger brother count of Artois (one of major counterrevolutionary interests during Rev.) becomes King Charles X (1824-30). OLD SCHOOL, 'Rather saw wood than be a king of the English kind.' *Attempts to roll back a lot of reforms, granting monetary indemnity to aristocrats who lost lands during Rev., and passes legislation encouraging Catholic Church to regain control over Fr education. *Outrage by many a/g this, Charles gets it in the classically liberal newspapers. King therefore tries to compromise by 1827 when he accepts principle of ministerial responsibility, arrangement in which the ministers of the king are answerable to the legislature. *But by 1829, violates this commitment, when deputies protest, dissolves the legislature in 1830, calls for new elections. By 1830 - France on brink of another revolution. 3) Italy: Nine states established by Congress of Vienna, but clear land is dominated by Austria, where empire either rules Italian lands directly (Venetia and Lombardy) or indirectly (Parmia, Tuscany, Modena - relatives of Austrian emperor). Buildup of nationalistic movements in I in secret with aim of achieving a united Italy free from foreign rule, such as the Carbonari. 4) Spain: While the newly resotred Ferdinand VII (1814-33) initially agrees to observe liberal constitution of 1812, allows for a functioning parliamentary assembly (Cortes), he reneges and tears up the constitution, dissolves Cortes, persecutes its members. Result is revolt by army officers, upper m-class merchants, liberal intellectuals to revolt a/g F, and king agrees to behave by 1820, restoring bodies dissolved. When Fr army under direction of conservative Continental powers come to invade in 1823, however, revolutionary gov collapses and Ferdinand is restored to throne with full powers. 5) Central Europe: Same kind of conservatism is occurring here and the Habsburg Empire, in which Metternich is seen as chief agent. "You see in me the chief Minister of Police in Europe. Keep an eye on everything. Contacts are such that nothing escapes me." *Keeps spies everywhere, searching for evidence of any liberal or nationalist plots that may arise (although in Austrian Empire neither nationalism or liberalism have gained steam to be constituted as a real threat). 6) German Confederation in Central Germany, while being politically powerless, gets more used by M as body that can help him keep an eye on any nationalist movements than anything else. *Same goes for Prussia, for while they were under Napoleon's thumb and instituted reforms that created a base for a rival nationalism to oppose N, as soon as N goes, rule of Prussian King Frederick William III (1797-1840) becomes less liberal and more reactionary, and after 1815 follow M's lead. *Prussia's reforms do make it stronger, but still no legislative assembly, no representative gov, little interest in things like German unity. *Liberal and nationalist movements in the German states are more/less relegated to the universities, where student societies referred to as Burschenschaften promote idea of a free, united Germany. Philosophical leader, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, promotes motto of 'Honor, Liberty, Fatherland' and encouraged Germans to pursue their heritage and urged his student followers to disrupt lectures of professors who were not nationalists. *Indeed the Burschenschaften between 1817-9 pursue activities that alarm various German governments. At an assembly at Wartburg Castle (1817) (marking 300th anniversary of Luther and 95 Theses) crowd burned books by conservative authors. Things worsen when deranged German student murders a reactionary playwright, Metternich getting involved has GC draw up Karlsbad Decrees of 1819. Suppress Burschenschaften, provide censorship of press, place universities under close supervision and control. Conservative status quo is maintained by M and German allies. Metternich has reason to be conservative: Chief minister of an Empire that has cornucopia of different peoples united by little less than allegiance to the Habsburg emperor. If there's a place where nationalism can be a problem, it's the Austrian Empire, people like the Hungarians are starting to make noise about autonomy, and empire can fall apart if such forces gain momentum. *But he nevertheless holds the Austrian Empire together under his watch. Not his job to embrace new philosophies, job to keep empire intact and if such philosophies threatened the empire, then M took every measure to prevent those philosophies from achieving tangible results. 7) Russia: Also conservative to point of being autocratic is the Empire of Russia, where tsar is still regarded as divine right monarch. *Alexander I (1801-25) first fan of the Enl and seemed willing to make reforms: end of adviser Speransky he relaxes censorship, freed political prisoners, and reformed education system. But he refused to grant writing of a formal constitution and refused to free serfs in land. *While he was at first open to being ally of Napoleon, over years his relationship cooled and when N invaded Russia and retreated, became more reactionary and his government after the Napoleonic wars relapsed into strict and arbitrary censorship. *Led to secret societies being formed to oppose Alexander such as Northern Union, an aristocratic led group of Napoleonic war veterans who have been exposed to world outside Russia, this group also included intellectuals who were alienated by Alexander's censorship and lack of academic freedom. The Northern Union wants a constitutional monarchy and abolition of serfdom, and when Alexander dies in 1825, see their chance. *As Alexander's brother Constantine was legal heir to throne, nevertheless renounced such claims in favor of younger brother Nicholas. However, Constantine's abdication was not yet made public, and during ensuing confusion in December 1825, military leaders of the NU rebelled a/g Nicholas' accession. The Decemberist Revolt was soon crushed and its leaders executed. *Revolt only serves to turn conservative Nicholas (1825-55) into a reactionary who wants to avoid another rebellion. Strengthened both central bureaucracy and secret police, known as Third Section, and these secret police are given extraordinary powers over much of Russian life. Could deport suspicious people or dangerous ones, maintain close surveillance over foreigners, resport regularly to czar on public opinion. *N not just afraid of revolution in Russia, afraid of other revolutions in Eu that might in some way spread to Russia. Indeed, called the Policeman of Europe because of willingness to use Russian troops to crush revolutions wherever they arose. *Conservatism or even reactionary behavior is order of the day. Conservative in the sense that many want to roll things back to pre-FR as was the thing that caused all the chaos in the first place and allowed Napoleon to rise. 3M Frenchmen died during FR, and during Napoleonic Wars 6.5M soldiers and civilians may have died. So Conservatives looked at this and said, if these are the winds of change - no thanks! Indeed thought they were operating on best of intentions. But would be on wane after 1830, and other political philosophies would rise.

In France in 1814, Louis of Provence, Louis XVI's younger brother, becomes Louis XVIII (1814-1824). Now, Louis XVIII isn't a fool, as he knows that he can't go acting like a complete absolute monarch by this time. Therefore, he accepts that France has changed, and allows for the Napoleonic Code to continue, with its recognition of equality before the law. Also, the property rights of people who have seized lands during the Revolution are protected. The government is one in which the king is the executive authority, with a bicameral legislature made up of the Chamber of Peers (chosen by the king) and the Chamber of Deputies, who are elected by about 100,000 wealthy people. It's not a democracy, really, but it's at least a bit more reform minded than, say, the government of Louis XIV. Louis' attempts at moderation (whether he likes it or not) is nevertheless opposed by liberals eager to institute more revolutionary reforms, as well as by ultraroyalists who are critical of the king's compromising nature; they want things the way they were back before the French Revolution, with a privileged aristocracy as well as the restoration of the Catholic Church as a heavily influential body. Louis, however, is able to keep these interests at bay until his death in 1824. However, the ultraroyalists gain the upper hand in 1824 when Louis passes away and his younger brother, the count of Artois (one of the major counterrevolutionary interests during the Revolution) becomes King Charles X (1824-1830). Charles is OLD SCHOOL, and states that 'I would rather saw wood than be a king of the English kind.' He attempts to roll back a lot of the reforms, granting a monetary indemnity to aristocrats who lost their lands during the Revolution, and passes legislation encouraging the Catholic Church to regain control over French education. There's outrage by many against this, and Charles gets it in the classically liberal newspapers. The king therefore tries to compromise by 1827 when he accepts the principle of ministerial responsibility, an arrangement in which the ministers of the king are answerable to the legislature. But by 1829, Charles violates this commitment, and when the deputies protest, he dissolves the legislature in 1830 and calls for new elections, so by 1830 France is on the brink of another revolution. In Italy, nine states have been established by the Congress of Vienna, but it's clear that the land is clearly dominated by Austria, where that empire either rules Italian lands directly (such as Venetia and Lombardy) or indirectly (places like Parma, Tuscany, or Modena are ruled by relatives of the Austrian emperor). So you have the buildup of nationalistic movements in Italy forming in secret with the aim of achieving a united Italy free from foreign rule, such as the Carbonari. In Spain, while the newly restored Ferdinand VII (1814-1833) initially agrees to observe the liberal constitution of 1812, which allows for a functioning parliamentary assembly (the Cortes), nevertheless reneges on his promises, tears up the constitution, dissolves the Cortes and persecutes its members. This results in a revolt by army officers, upper middle class merchants and liberal intellectuals to revolt against Ferdinand, and the king agrees to behave by 1820, restoring those bodies he has dissolved. When the French army under the direction of the conservative Continental powers comes to invade in 1823, however, the revolutionary government collapses and Ferdinand is restored to his throne with full powers. This same kind of conservatism is also occurring in Central Europe and the Habsburg Empire, in which Metternich is seen as its chief agent. Metternich explains that 'You see in me the chief Minister of Police in Europe. I keep an eye on everything. My contacts are such that nothing escapes me.' Metternich keeps spies everywhere, searching for evidence of any liberal or nationalist plots that may arise (although in the Austrian Empire, neither nationalism nor liberalism have really gained enough steam during this time to really be constituted as a real threat). The German Confederation in central Germany, while being politically powerless, gets more used by Metternich as a body that can help him keep an eye on any nationalist movements there than anything else. The same goes for Prussia, for while the Prussians, while they were under Napoleon's thumb and instituted reforms that created a base for a rival nationalism to oppose Napoleon, as soon as Napoleon goes, the rule of the Prussian King Frederick William III (1797-1840) becomes less liberal and more reactionary, and after 1815 follows Metternich's lead. Prussia's reforms do make it stronger, but there's still no legislative assembly, no representative government, and there's little interest in things like German unity. Liberal and nationalist movements in the German states, indeed, are more or less relegated to the universities, where student societies referred to as Burschenschaften promote the idea of a free, united Germany. Their philosophical leader, Frederick Ludwig Jahn, promotes the motto of 'Honor, Liberty, Fatherland,' and he encouraged Germans to pursue their heritage and urged his student followers to disrupt lectures of professors who were not themselves nationalists. Indeed, the Burschenschaften between 1817 and 1819 pursue activities that alarm the various German governments. At an assembly held at Wartburg Castle in 1817 (marking the 300th anniversary of Luther and his 95 theses), the crowed burned books by conservative authors. Things worsen when a deranged German student murders a reactionary playwright, and Metternich, getting involved, has the German Confederation draw up the Karlsbad Decrees of 1819. These suppress the Burschenschaften, provide for censorship of the press, and place the universities under close supervision and control. Thereafter, the conservative status quo is maintained by Metternich and his German allies. Don't you just love how fanatics are the ones to screw things up for the rest of us? And Metternich has a reason to be conservative. He's the chief minister of an Empire that has a cornucopia of different peoples united by little else than their allegiance to the Habsburg emperor. If there's a place where nationalism can possibly be a problem, it's the Austrian Empire, and peoples like the Hungarians are starting to make noise about autonomy, and the empire can fall apart if such forces gain momentum. But Metternich nevertheless holds the Austrian Empire together under his watch. It wasn't his job to embrace new philosophies, it was his job to keep the empire intact, and if such philosophies threatened the empire, then Metternich took every measure to prevent those philosophies from achieving tangible results. Also conservative to the point of being autocratic is the empire of Russia, where the tsar is still regarded as a divine right monarch. Alexander I (1801-1825) at first was a fan of the Enlightenment and seemed willing to make reforms. With the aid of his adviser Speransky, he relaxes censorship, freed political prisoners, and reformed the education system. However, he refused to grant the writing of a formal constitution, and he refused to free the serfs in his lands. Moreover, while he at first was open to being an ally of Napoleon, over the years his relationship with France cooled, and when Napoleon invaded Russia and retreated, Alexander became more reactionary, and his government after the Napoleonic wars relapsed into strict and arbitrary censorship. This led to secret societies being formed to oppose Alexander, such as the Northern Union, an aristocratic led group of Napoleonic war veterans who have been exposed to the world outside Russia, and this group also included intellectuals who were alienated by Alexander's censorship as well as their lack of academic freedom. The Northern Union wants a constitutional monarchy and the abolition of serfdom, and when Alexander dies in 1825, they see their chance. As Alexander's brother Constantine was the legal heir to the throne, he nevertheless renounces such claims in favor of his younger brother Nicholas. However, Constantine's abdication was not yet made public, and during the ensuing confusion in December 1825, the military leaders of the Northern Union rebelled against Nicholas' accession. This Decembrist Revolt, as it was called, was soon crushed and its leaders executed. The revolt serves only to turn the conservative Nicholas (1825-1855) into a reactionary who wants to avoid another rebellion. He strengthened both the central bureaucracy and the secret police, known as the Third Section, and these secret police are given extraordinary powers over much of Russian life. They could deport suspicious people or dangerous ones, maintain close surveillance over foreigners, and report regularly to the czar on public opinion. Indeed, Nicholas isn't just afraid of revolution in Russia, he's also afraid of other revolutions in Europe that might in some way spread to Russia. Indeed, he was called the Policeman of Europe because of his willingness to use Russian troops to crush revolutions wherever they arose. But in any case, conservatism, or even reactionary behavior, is the order of the day. And it's conservative in the sense that many just want to roll things back to before the French Revolution, as that was the thing that caused all the chaos in the first place and allowed Napoleon to rise. To be honest, if you think about it, in many ways they had a point, 3 million Frenchmen died during the French Revolution, and during the Napoleonic wars as many as 6.5 million soldiers and civilians may have died. So the conservatives look and see that, hey, if these are the winds of change, count us out. Indeed, the conservatives thought they were operating from the best of intentions. However, conservatism would be on the wane after 1830, and other political philosophies would begin to rise.

*In Great Britain, was no real revolutionary problem in 1848, but for different reasons. Rather than cracking down on people, Britain's Reform Act of 1832 allowed for a representation of the industrial middle class and economic growth after 1850 meant this better standard of living extended to working classes in form of higher wages. Was the Age of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), as people are doing well they tended to use her as a rallying point. *However, politically not as much progress is made between 1855-65 as a result of unwillingness of Whig Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, as he opposed extending the voting franchise. After death, movement to extend the voting pop only increases. But it is not the Whigs who are responsible for this reform, but the Tory party under Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81). Disraeli is from a Portuguese Jewish turned Anglican family (who wrote romance novels in spare time). Despite his power and prominence and the fact that he was an observant Anglican Christian, many in Britain still looked down upon Disraeli for his Jewish background. Disraeli sees the new voters he creates will be loyal to the Conservative party. He therefore gets the Reform Act of 1867 passed, which is an important step to democratization of Britain. The Act lowered the property/monetary requirements for voting (taxes paid or income earned), giving large amount of votes to working classes and increasing franchise from 1 to 2 million. This backfires on Disraeli, as the working classes proceed to turn around and show gratitude by voting for Liberal Party. Indeed this is a time when both parties are thinking more about ways to please their voters, and rivalry between parties is intense, as they embody the personal rivalries of the Conservative Disraeli and the Liberal Party leader William Gladstone (1809-98). *Bit of a seesaw between parties from 1860s-80s. While Disraeli extends voting rights, Gladstone produced some reforms too. Gets civil service to pick its employees on basis of competitive exams, than patronage, introduces secret ballot for voting, and abolishes the practice of purchasing a military commission (if you wanted to be a captain or major in the British Army you had to have the money to purchase the commission; now based theoretically on merit). Also gets Education Act of 1870 passed, attempting to make elementary school education available for all children. Disraeli when he comes back to power in 1874-80, determines he will not be outdone by Gladstone and gets Aristans' and Labourers Dwellings Imporvement Act of 1875 passed, which compels slumlords to sell their dwellings to local councils, who will then demolish these places to build better housing for workers. *His Public Health Act of 1875 requires all residencies must now have running water and internal drainage system. *Factory Act of 1878 curtails role of child labor in industry, now to attend school, and women are not allowed to work more than certain amount of hours. *Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act allows trade unions to peacefully picket businesses during strike, and Employers and Workmen Act allows workers to sue their bosses if the bosses break the contract. *Indeed such is the activity of the Conservative Party in the 1870s. Gladstone in his second government (1880-5) extends franchise to agricultural workers in the 1884 Reform Act. Disraeli and Gladstone HATE each other (one is a Portuguese-Jew turned High Church Anglican who never went to college; the other is an Evangelical Protestant who went to Oxford). While Disraeli denounced his rival, Grandstone retorted. Isn't helped by fact that Queen Victoria has all time in the world for Disraeli but detests Gladstone. In any case, this rivalry allows British people to win out, as a lot more of them have better working conditions and can vote!

In Great Britain, as I have said before, there was no real revolutionary problem in 1848, but for different reasons. Rather than cracking down on people, Britain's Reform Act of 1832 allowed for a representation of the industrial middle class, and the economic growth after 1850 meant that this better standard of living extended to the working classes in the form of higher wages. This was the Age of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), and as people were doing well, they tended to use her as a rallying point. However, politically, not much progress is made between 1855-1865 as a result of the unwillingness of the Whig Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, as he opposed extending the voting franchise. After his death, the movement to extend the voting population only increases. But it is not the Whigs (now referred to as the Liberal Party) who are responsible for further reform, but rather the Tory (Conservative) party under Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881). Disraeli is from a Portuguese Jewish[1] turned Anglican family (who wrote romance novels in his spare time) who sees that the new voters he creates will be loyal to the Conservative Party. He therefore gets the Reform Act of 1867 passed, which is an important step towards the democratization of Britain. The Act lowered the property/monetary requirements for voting (i.e. taxes paid or income earned), giving a large amount of votes to the working classes and increasing the franchise from 1 to 2 million. This backfires on Disraeli, however, as the working classes proceed to turn around and show their gratitude by voting for the Liberal Party (strange how that happens). Indeed, this is a time when both parties are thinking more about ways to please their voters, and rivalry between the parties is intense, as they embody the personal rivalries of the Conservative Disraeli and the Liberal Party leader William Gladstone (1809-1898). Indeed, there's a bit of a seesaw between the parties from the 1860s to the 1880s. While Disraeli extended voting rights, Gladstone produced some reforms of his own. Gladstone gets the civil service to pick its employees on the basis of competitive exams, rather than patronage, introduces a secret ballot for voting, and abolishes the practice of purchasing a military commission (before, if you wanted to be a captain, major, etc. in the British Army, you had to have the money to purchase the commission; now, it's based theoretically on your merit, although who you know also helps). Gladstone also gets the Education Act of 1870 passed, attempting to make elementary school education available for all children. Disraeli, when he comes back into power in 1874 (until 1880), determines that he will not be outdone by Gladstone and gets the Artisans' and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act of 1875 passed, which compels slumlords to sell their dwellings (such as they are) to local councils, who will then demolish these places to build better housing for workers. His Public Health Act of 1875 requires that all residencies must now have running water and an internal drainage system. His Factory Act of 1878 greatly curtails the role of child labor in industry, as they are now to attend school, and women are not allowed to work more than a certain amount of hours. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act allows trade unions to peacefully picket businesses during a strike, and the Employers and Workmen Act allows workers to sue their bosses if the bosses break their contract. Indeed, such is the activity of the Conservative Party in the 1870s that one Liberal MP quipped 'The Conservatives have done more for the working poor in the last 5 years than the Liberals have done in 50!' Gladstone in his second government (1880-1885) extends the franchise to agricultural workers in the 1884 Reform Act. Disraeli and Gladstone HATE each other (one is a Portuguese Jew-turned High Church Anglican who never went to college; and the other is an Evangelical Protestant who went to Oxford). While Disraeli denounces his rival as '...that unprincipled maniac Gladstone - extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy and superstition,' Gladstone retorted 'the Tory party had principles by which it would and did stand for bad and for good. All this Dizzy destroyed.' This isn't helped by the fact that Queen Victoria has all the time in the world for Disraeli, but absolutely detests Gladstone. In any case, this rivalry allows the British people to win out, as a lot more of them have better working conditions and the vote! [1] Despite his power and prominence and the fact that he was an observant Anglican Christian, many in Britain still looked down upon Disraeli for his Jewish background, and in response to one particularly nasty critic, he retorted 'Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honorable gentleman were brutal savages on an unknown island, mine were the priests in the Temple of Solomon.'

*The destruction of the Concert of Europe after the Crimean War leads to circumstances that make it possible for unifications in both Italy and Germany. *Italy In 1850, Austria still dominant power in peninsula. Despite this, number of people in north advocating Italian unification, and looking to the state of Piedmont/Sardinia, despite being defeated by Austrians in 1848 to do this, especially as under new leadership of King Victor Emmanuel II (1849-78) and Camillo di Cavour (1810-61). Cavour is running most of show, but is a liberal minded nobleman who has made money in shipping, farming, banking, r-roads, and knows how to argue pepole along to his side. *Invests (Cavour) heavily in the Piedmont economy during time as Prime Minister, fostering business enterprises and encouraging building of Piedmont's infrastructure. From increase in ov revenues as result, able to equip large army. *Uses this army to send the Crimean War on the side of the Fr, where he hopes he can acquire a degree of respect for Piedmont by showing it's willing to do its bit to help Great Powers. This is done, and Piedmont gets more respect, especially from Napoleon III. *Cavour wants to move a/g Austria after this, but knows he can't challenge Au authority directly, knows he would need Fr to help him out. Makes nice with NIII, saying if the Fr help Piedmont drive the Austrians out, they'll get the Piedmontese provinces of Nice and Savoy. Fr would help the Piedmontese to reorganize Italy, with Lombardy, Venetia, Parma, Modena, and part of Papal States added to Piedmont to create Kingdom of Northern Italy *Fr would get kingdom in Central Italy to be given to Napoleon III's cousin, who would then be married to the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. In thinking that he would have a major presence in Italy, Napoleon III agrees, and Cavour provokes Austria into war in April 1859. The French do most of the fighting, defeating the Austrians at Magnenta and Solferino, and they make peace with Austria in July 1859 without informing their Italian ally. Why the sudden peace? Well, NIII realized despite two losses, Austria had bit of fight still left in them, and doesn't want a long drawn out war (remember, NIII isn't NI!). Prussia was making overtures to mobilize on Austria's behalf, and NIII had no desire to fight two enemies on two fronts simultaneously. *As a result of NIII's peace with Austria, Piedmont only receives Lombardy, whereas Venetia remains under Au control. Cavour was furious at treachery of French, howver, things still work out in his favor. At same time as the outbreak of war with Au, nationalist interests in Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and part of Papal States take over and agree to join Piedmont. NIII agrees to this, in return for Nice and Savoy. *Things happening in the south of Italy and the north. Giuseppe Garibaldi, an Italian patriot who cut his teeth supporting cause of Mazzini and Young Italy in 1848, raises army of 1,000 called Red Shirts and sails down to Sicily to support uprising against Buorbon King of the Two Sicilies, though forces are outnumbered. *Garibaldi relies on the support of the people, who are sick of Bourbon rule, and Bourbon army isn't enthusiastic about defending a kingdom no one cares about. His daring tactics (uphill bayonet charges) and help from British royal navy ensures Garibaldi is in control of island. In August 1860 he crosses over into mainland and begins victorious march up island, with little resistance, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies effectively ceases to exist by September. *Proclaims himself dictator of these lands, ruling in stead of King Victor Emmanuel II. But: while G is successful, Cavour up north finds him to be too liberal. G, for example, wants to march on Rome and completely eliminate the Papacy (G hates the popes). G is more of a democratic Republican (even offered services to Abe Lincoln in fighting for Union in the Civil War) and this is not good in Cavour's eyes. *Moreover, if G marches on Rome, then many Catholics throughout Eu (NIII's France especially) will turn a/g Cavour and Nationalists. So Cavour has to act quickly to pre-empt G's attacks. Cavour sends Piedmontese forces south, bypasses Rome and marches to Naples to meet up with G's forces. G then has no choice (other than starting civil war) but to yield to Cavour, and retires to his farm. Plebiscites held in Naples and Papal States, support union with Piedmont. So by March 1861, new Kingdom of Italy is proclaimed under centralized gov with Victor Emmanuel II as king. Despite this development, Italy not yet united! *Venetia still belongs to Austria, and Rome still under Papal control with French garrison defending it. So Italy can't do much at moment. Cavour isn't running show anymore, dies of stroke shortly after kingdom's creation in 1861. *With no Cavour, Italy wonders what to do. Victor Emmanuel doesn't have Rome or Venetia, and can't take on either Fr or Austria. Moreover, while Garibaldi is useful, bit of a wild card hothead (forces briefly come into conflict with those of Italy's, with G being wounded then briefly imprisoned, but released later). *No, what gets Italy these two lands are efforts of Prussia, undergoing own unification process. Prussia defeats Austria in war in 1866, with new Italian state becoming ally of Prussia and fighting Austria during this war. Although I's army is defeated by Austria, nevertheless gets Venetia at war's conclusion as thank-you from Prussia. *In 1870, when Prussians kick butt of French in the Franco-Prussian War, withdraw of Fr troops from Rome allows Italy to annex city in September 1870. By that time, Rome becomes capital of Italy and Italy is unified.

In any case, the destruction of the Concert of Europe after the Crimean War leads to circumstances that make it possible for the unifications of both Italy and Germany. Let's start with Italy. In 1850, Austria is still the dominant power in the peninsula. Despite this, there are still a number of people in the north advocating Italian unification, and they're looking to the state of Piedmont/Sardinia, despite being defeated by the Austrians in 1848, to do this, especially under the new leadership of King Victor Emmanuel II (1849-1878) and Camillo di Cavour (1810-1861). Cavour is running most of the show, but is a liberal minded nobleman who has made money in shipping, farming, banking, and railroads, and knows how to argue people around to his side. He invests heavily in the Piedmont economy during his time as prime minister, fostering business enterprises and encouraging the building of Piedmont's infrastructure. From the increase in government revenues as a result of this he's able to equip a large army. He uses this army to send to the Crimean War on the side of the French, where he hopes that he can acquire a degree of respect for Piedmont by showing it's willing to do its bit to help the Great Powers. This is done, and Piedmont gets more respect, especially from Napoleon III. Cavour wants to move against Austria after this, but knows he can't challenge Austrian authority directly, and knows he would need the French to help him out. So he makes nice with Napoleon III, saying that if the French help Piedmont drive the Austrians out, then they'll get the Piedmontese provinces of Nice and Savoy. The French would help the Piedmontese to reorganize Italy, with Lombardy, Venetia, Parma, Modena, and part of the Papal States added to Piedmont to create a kingdom of Northern Italy. The French would get a kingdom in Central Italy to be given to Napoleon III's cousin, who would then be married to the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. In thinking that he would have a major presence in Italy, Napoleon III agrees, and Cavour provokes Austria into war in April 1859. The French do most of the fighting, defeating the Austrians at Magnenta and Solferino, and they make peace with Austria in July 1859 without informing their Italian ally. Why the sudden peace. Well, Napoleon III realized that despite two losses, Austria had a bit of fight still left in them, and he doesn't want a long drawn out war (after all, this is France that Napoleon III rules, they could lose at any time! ;). Furthermore, Prussia was making overtures to mobilize on Austria's behalf, and Napoleon III had no desire to fight two enemies on two fronts simultaneously. As a result of Napoleon III's peace with Austria, Piedmont only receives Lombardy, and Venetia remains under Austrian control. Cavour was furious at the treachery of the French, however, things still work out in his favor somewhat. At the same time as the outbreak of the war with Austria, nationalist interests in Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and part of the Papal states take over and agree to join Piedmont. Napoleon III agrees to this, as he's been pretty douchy thus far, in return for Nice and Savoy. Things are happening in the south of Italy as well as the north. Giuseppe Garibaldi, an Italian patriot who cut his teeth supporting the cause of Mazzini and Young Italy in 1848, raises an army of 1,000 called the Red Shirts (guess what their uniforms look like) and sails down to Sicily to support an uprising against the Bourbon king of the Two Sicilies, though his forces are outnumbered. The thing is, Garibaldi relies on the support of the people, who are sick of Bourbon rule, and the Bourbon army isn't exactly enthusiastic about defending a kingdom that no one really cares about. His daring tactics (i.e. uphill bayonet charges, which against any other army would be suicide) and help from the British royal navy ensures that Garibaldi is in control of the island. In August, he crosses over into the mainland and basically begins a victorious march up the island, with little resistance, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies effectively ceases to exist by September. Garibaldi proclaims himself dictator of these lands, ruling in the stead of King Victor Emmanuel II. But here's the thing: while Garibaldi is extremely successful, Cavour up north finds him to be a bit too liberal for his tastes. Garibaldi, for example, wants to march on Rome and COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the Papacy (Garibaldi hates the popes). Garibaldi is more of a democratic Republican (he even offered his services to Abraham Lincoln in fighting for the Union in the Civil War) and this is not a good thing in Cavour's eyes. Moreover, if Garibaldi marches on Rome, then many Catholics throughout Europe (esp. Napoleon III's France) will turn against Cavour and the Nationalists. So Cavour has to act quickly to pre-empt Garibaldi's attacks. Cavour sends Piedmontese forces south, bypasses Rome and marches to Naples to meet up with Garibaldi's forces. Garibaldi then has no choice (other than starting a civil war) but to yield to Cavour, and retires to his farm. Plebiscites are held in Naples and the Papal states, and they support union with Piedmont. So by March 1861, the new Kingdom of Italy is proclaimed under a centralized government with Victor Emmanuel II as king. Despite this development, Italy is not yet united. Venetia still belongs to Austria, and Rome is still under Papal control with a French garrison defending it. So Italy can't do much at the moment. Moreover, Cavour isn't running the show anymore, as he dies of a stroke shortly after the kingdom's creation in 1861. Now, with no Cavour, Italy wonders what it's going to do. Victor Emmanuel still doesn't have Rome or Venetia, and he can't take on either France or Austria at this point in time. Moreover, while Garibaldi is useful, he's a bit of a wild card hothead (his forces briefly come into conflict with those of Italy's, with Garibaldi being wounded then briefly imprisoned, although he was released later). No, what gets Italy these two lands are the efforts of Prussia, which is undergoing its own unification process. Prussia defeats Austria in a war in 1866, with the new Italian state becoming an ally of Prussia and fighting Austria during this war. Although Italy's army is defeated by Austria, she nevertheless gets Venetia at the war's conclusion as a thank-you from Prussia. In 1870, when the Prussians kick the arses of the French in the Franco-Prussian War, the withdraw of French troops from Rome allows Italy to annex the city in September 1870. By that time, Rome becomes the capital of Italy, and Italy is completely unified.

*In Central Africa, European missionaries like Dr. Livingstone and Henry Stanley inspired interest into workings of the 'Dark Continent.' Stanley's exploration leads him to be recruited by the King of Belgium, Leopold II to open up settlements to 'civilize' the natives by bringing in Belgian settlers. Leads to the creation of the Congo Free State and the Belgian Congo by the 1880s and 90s. Thought Rhodes was amoral, Leopold II, King of Belgium is worse. *Leopold II of Belgium (r. 1865-1909) got involved in colonization in Africa after a few abortive attempts to engineer an annexation of the Philippines from Spain. Went into the Congo under pretext of 'improving the lives of the natives' sending in an org called the International African Society in the 1870s, disguised as research expedition but in reality a holding company meant to get a foothold in the region. *By 1885, made enough inroads to have both the major Eu powers and the US recognize his claim in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is effectively his own private property known as the Congo Free State. Leopold was able to amass a huge fortune through ivory and rubber and use it to finance huge building projects in Belgium, which earned him the unofficial title of 'The Builder King.' *However, he does this off the backs of native Congolese, who are forced laborers subject to beatings, disease, mutilation, and widespread killing to keep them docile and working. So atrocious is the situation in Congo Leopold is criticized by such leading authors as Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who write critically of the conditions there, and the British actually send colonial official Sir Roger Casement to investigate human rights abuses. *Leopold claimed to know nothing of the abuses in the Congo, though untrue. Similar treatment of native pops by other colonial powers like Germany, France, Portugal in rubber producing colonies happened but to lesser degree, and Leopold probably justified his behavior by saying 'everyone else is doing it, why can't I?' This allowed him to 'countenance' the situation. *However, criticism of his actions came not only from writers but parliamentary parties in Belgium, especially from the Catholic and Labor parties, who by 1908 engineer legislation forcing Leopold to give up ownership of the colony and transfer it to the Parliament, when it is renamed the Belgian Congo. *Before the handover, Leopold had all archives of the Congo Free State burned to destroy any evidence of his wrongdoing. When his advisors protest his action, he states it was his property and that parliament had no right to know what he did there. Modern historical accounts state under his regime in the Congo, 10 million people died, putting Leopold up there with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in terms of wholesale slaughter. Belgium itself said to have embarked on 'The Great Forgetting' in effort to obscure Leopold's crimes and these were not highlighted again until much later in 20th. *Congress of Berlin, giving European powers clearly defined areas of operation where they could colonize. Most of the continent is under European rule, save for the independent countries of the American-influenced Liberia and the Abyssinian Kingdom of Ethiopia (able to soundly defeat Italian efforts to conquer it in the 1890s). *Most of these colonies were under either civilian or military control depending on circumstance, but dominated by European personnel. If a native African, quality of life depended on where you were and who was running your colonies. While conditions could be downright atrocious in places like Congo (run by Belgium) or Namibia (run by Germans), would be slighly better in colonies run by France (though native pops subject to apartheid-like existence). Some colonial powers did provide access to education for natives. *In British colonies, education decentralized and left to missionary societies who had large amount of freedom in running schools and instructing natives in English, reading, writing, mathematics, religion (usually adapted their teaching to local conditions). *In French schools, education centralized, teachers had gov certification, and taught with the aim of education being one which would assimilate the African into a Frenchmen. French centralized education much more expensive to the treasury (and less prominent) than that of Br, and Br colonies tended to have higher literacy rate among native pops. *While jobs were limited in colonies despite efforts to 'educate' native pops, some Africans could still find career serving in the colonial armed forces. Soldiers collectively known as askari, served in Br, G, I, Belgian, Portuguese colonial forces. Jobs were varied. In Belgian Congo, served as police forces, while the British used them not only for law enforcement but military operations a/g slavers as way of stomping out slavery in those regions (never mind British still maintained racial superiority while doing so, and Africans did not have equal rights in lands by any means). *Most famous Askari were in the German colonies, where they served important role in defending those colonies in the First World War (1914-8). The Schuztruppe, or German Colonial Army, had Eu officers and NCOs commanding African troops, and while these soldiers were harshly disciplined, were better paid than native troops in the British armies. Under the command of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964), have some success in the First World War. *L-V during war commanded a couple of thousand German troops as well as about 11k Askari in German East Africa. Whereas Br, Port, and Fr forces greatly outnumbered him, L-V and his Askari were able to fight one of the most successful guerilla campaigns in history in Central Africa from 1914-8, effectively neutralizing Allied efforts there and tying down much larger force of over 100k Allied troops. *Invaded British and Port territory in hit-and-run raids, targeting forts, railways, communications lines, all with aim of Allies having to divert men from Western Front in Eu down to Africa. In the field, L-V and men were undefeated by Allied Forces, but still had to surrender at war's end. *L-V greatly respected by his Askari. Spoke Swahili fluently, appointed Black oficers to high positions in his units, stated to these men they fought for their land because 'We are all Africans here!' Vorbeck after the First World War greatly/successfully campaigned for the German gov to supply these men with veterans pensions, and when in retirement in 1953 he visited East Africa where he was heartily welcomed by his surviving Askari veterans. *While men like L-V saw native Africans in an egalitarian light, this was the exception than the rule. Opportunities for Africans even ones who were educated in Eu systems, were severely limited, as the Europeans' sense of their own racial superiority would never allow native peoples to move past certain point. Even in colonies run much better (such as Br ones) Black Africans second-class citizens, subjected to apartheid-like conditions, would be case for the most part up until the movements to de-colonization in the 1950s and 60s.

In central Africa, European missionaries and explorers such as Dr. Livingstone and Henry Stanley (respectively) inspired interest into the workings of the "Dark Continent." Indeed, Stanley's exploration leads him to be recruited by the King of Belgium, Leopold II, to open up settlements to "civilize" the natives by bringing in Belgian settlers. This leads the to the creation of the Congo Free State as well as the Belgian Congo by the 1880s and 90s. Now, if you thought Rhodes could be amoral, Leopold II, King of Belgium, could be a right bastard. Leopold II of Belgium. Leopold II of Belgium (r. 1865-1909), got involved in colonization in Africa after a few abortive attempts to engineer an annexation of the Philippines from Spain. He went into the Congo under the pretext of "improving the lives of the natives," sending in an organization called the International African Society in the 1870s, disguised as a research expedition but in reality a holding company meant to get a foothold in the region. By 1885, he's made enough inroads to have both the major European powers and the U.S. to recognize his claim to what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is effectively his own private property known as the Congo Free State. Leopold was able to amass a huge fortune via ivory and rubber and use it to finance huge building projects in Belgium, which earned him the unofficial title "The Builder King." However, he does this off the backs of the native Congolese, who are effectively forced laborers subject to beatings, disease, mutilation, and widespread killing in order to keep them docile and working. So atrocious is the situation in the Congo that Leopold is criticized by such leading authors as Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who write critically of the conditions there, and the British actually end up sending colonial official Sir Roger Casement to investigate human rights abuses. Leopold claimed to know nothing of the abuses in the Congo, although this is certainly untrue. Similar treatment of native populations by other colonial powers such as Germany, France and Portugal in rubber producing colonies also happened (although to a lesser degree), and Leopold probably justified his behavior by saying "everyone else is doing it, why can't I?" This allowed him to "countenance" the situation. However, criticism of his actions came not only from writers but also parliamentary parties in his own Belgium, especially from the Catholic and Labor parties, who by 1908 engineer legislation forcing Leopold to give up ownership of the colony and transfer it to his parliament, when it is renamed the Belgian Congo. Before the handover, however, Leopold has all of the archives of the Congo Free State burned to destroy any evidence of his wrongdoing. When his advisors protest this action, he states that it was his property and that parliament had "no right to know what I did there." Modern historical accounts state that under his regime in the Congo, over 10 million people died, putting Leopold up there with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in terms of wholesale slaughter. Belgium itself was said to have embarked on "The Great Forgetting" in an effort to obscure Leopold's crimes, and these were not highlighted again until much later in the 20th century. That's only a few ways in which some of the European powers colonized Africa, and their efforts were formalized by the Congress of Berlin in, giving these powers clearly defined areas of operation where they could colonize. By 1914, the map of Africa looks like this: Most of the continent, as you can see, is under European rule, save for the independent countries of the (American-influenced) Liberia, as well as the Abyssinian Kingdom of Ethiopia (which was able to soundly defeat Italian efforts to conquer it in the 1890s). Most of these colonies were under either civilian or military control depending on the circumstances, but were dominated by European personnel. If you were a native African, your quality of life depended on where you were and who was running your colonies. While your conditions could be downright atrocious in places like the Congo (run by Belgium) or Namibia (run by the Germans), it would be slightly better in colonies run by France (although native populations there are subject to an apartheid-like existence). Some colonial powers did provide access to education for the natives. In British colonies, education was decentralized and was left to missionary societies who had a large amount of freedom in running schools and instructing natives in English, reading, writing, mathematics, religion (and here they usually adapted their teaching to local conditions). In French schools, education was centralized, teachers had government certification, and taught with the aim of education being one which would assimilate the African into a Frenchman. Consequently, French centralized education was much more expensive to the treasury (and less prominent) than that of the British, and consequently British colonies tended to have a higher literacy rate among native populations. A British colonial school. Conditions were usually makeshift. While jobs were limited in the colonies despite efforts to "educate" the native populations, some Africans could still find a career serving in the colonial armed forces. These soldiers are collectively known as askari, and served in British, German, Italian, Belgian, and Portuguese colonial forces. Their jobs were varied. In Belgian Congo, for example, they served as police forces, while the British used them not only for law enforcement but also for military operations against slavers as a way of stomping out slavery in those regions (never mind that the British still maintained a sense of racial superiority while doing so, and Africans did not have equal rights in these lands by any means!). The most famous askari were in the German colonies, where they served an important role in defending those colonies in the First World War (1914-18). The Schuztruppe, or German Colonial Army, had European officers and NCOs commanding African troops, and while these soldiers were harshly disciplined (it IS the German Army after all!), they were better paid than native troops in the British armies. Under the command of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964), they have some success in the war. Von Lettow-Vorbeck (left), German Askari (right). Lettow-Vorbeck during the war commanded a couple of thousand German troops as well as about 11,000 Askari in German East Africa. Whereas British, Portuguese, and French forces greatly outnumbered him, Lettow-Vorbeck and his Askari were able to fight one of the most successful guerilla campaigns in history in Central Africa from 1914-1918, effectively neutralizing Allied efforts there and tying down a much larger force of over 100,000 Allied troops. They invaded British and Portuguese territory in hit-and-run raids, targeting forts, railways, communications lines, all with the aim of the Allies having to divert men from the Western Front in Europe down to Africa. In the field, Lettow-Vorbeck and his men were undefeated by Allied Forces, but still had to surrender at war's end. Lettow-Vorbeck was greatly respected by his Askari. He spoke Swahili fluently, appointed Black officers to high positions in his units, and stated to these men that they fought for their land because "We are all Africans here!" Vorbeck after the First World War greatly (and successfully) campaigned for the German government to supply these men with veterans pensions, and when in retirement in 1953 he visited East Africa where he was heartily welcomed by his surviving Askari veterans.[1] That being said, while there were men like von Lettow-Vorbeck who saw native Africans in an egalitarian light, this was the exception rather than the rule. Opportunities for Africans, even ones who were educated in European systems, were severely limited, as the Europeans' sense of their own racial superiority would never allow native peoples to move past a certain point. As has been said, even in the colonies which were run better (such as the British ones), Black Africans were second-class citizens, subjected to apartheid-like conditions, and this would be the case for the most part up until the movements towards de-colonization in the 1950s and 60s. [1] After the war Lettow-Vorbeck served as head of the Weimar Republican army, but when Hitler came to power and tried to co-opt him as commander of the Wehrmacht, Lettow-Vorbeck, who despised Hitler and Nazism, told Hitler "go f-ck yourself" and stepped down as leader of the army. So, good guy points there!

*How conservative regimes managed to outwit and play various liberal, nationalist, socialist interests off against e-other to emerge victorious after revolutions of 1848. However, conservative regimes pretty smart in that they adapt, incorporating liberal and nationalist policies in gov to avoid further challenges to power. Most evident in places like France, Germany, and Italy. 1. France By 1848 established Second Republic, but doesn't last for long before Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, called Napoleon the Small by detractors like Victor Hugo because B didn't seem to have anything to his character except famous name (nephew of first Napoleon). Indeed many look down upon him for essentially using name recognition to get elected the first president of the Second Republic. Bonaparte, however, clever politician who knows score with what's popular and what isn't. *Isn't just content with being President of F, wants more power, and will not be swayed by anyone. Spends first three years of presidency getting people on side, and is very popular (fact the remains of first N return home from St. Helena to F during his presidency only serves to make him more loved by F people, as he wants to play off on his famous uncle's memory). *Able to achieve more power when wanting to stand for re-election even though the SR's constitution process opposes it, initially met with opposition to idea from National Assembly. However, N quashes opposition when he uses his troops to seize control of gov on December 1, 1851. After achieving supremacy, reinstates universal male suffrage, asks F people to restructure the gov by electing him president for 10 years. F people do this, voting their support with 7.5M yes and 640k no votes. A year later, in 1852, B asks peple to vote on referendum for restoration of French Empire, 97% affirmative, making B leader of Second French Empire with him taking title of Napoleon III (NII was N's son, never ruled and died young). So by December 1852, NIII is emperor! His gov is initially authoritarian, but in a Bonapartist sense, with NIII reasoning you're basically under bunch of institutions that were set up first by Napoleon so why not adopt his political institution as well? So NIII controls armed forces, police, and civil service. *Only he can introduce legislation and declare war. Legislature still exists and is re-elected every 6 years by universal male suffrage, but have no real power. First five years of NIII's reign are a huge success! *Economically, F doing qell, and N uses gov resources to stimulate economy. Subsidizes the infrastructure (canals, roads, harbors, r-roads) and is responsible for completing majority of F's railways during reign. *Industrially NIII triples iron production in F, socially provides for buildings of hospitals and free medicine for poor, advocates better housing for working classes. Completely restructures city of Paris, destroying narrow streets and old city walls, creating modern Paris of broad boulevards, circular plazas, public squares, underground sewage systems, public water supply, gaslights to illuminate streets. *Soem of this meant to control pop and beautify city (broader streets make it harder for insurrectionists to throw up barricades, and helps troops move faster to put down resistance). *Go well for while, but by 1860s many have problems with NIII's authoritarian regime! So being smart, takes steps to liberalize the gov. Reaches out to new working class, legalizing trade unions and granting them right to strike. While Legislative body, the Legislative Corps, heavily controlled in 1850s, by this time NIII proceeds to give opposition candidates greater freedom to campaign and legislature now has more say in gov, and now allowed to have role in formulating the budget. *This liberalization works, as by 1870, when NIII holds referendum on whether/not F should have a new constitution, F people overwhelmingly vote to keep imperial gov, although triumph would be short-lived, as NIII decidedly hit-and-miss when it came to foreign affairs. *Not to say NIII is a complete failure during reign. For example, makes great progress to make F the arbiter of Eu, when Ottoman Empire now in complete decline being taken advantage of by various Eu powers. By 1850s, Ottoman Empire is 'sick man of Europe.' (Nicholas I) *Sickness has been a long one: 1) It lost Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Slovenia to the Austrians in 1699, 2) Loses northern Black Sea possessions and what is now Eastern Romania to Russians in 18th and early 19th; 3) Has to accept Serbia and Greece's independence in the late 1820s, 4) Loses Algeria to France in 1830. Moreoever, some of its richer provinces such as Egypt gained autonomy. *So on downslide, can't do much about it. One Eu power that wants to take advantage of this is RUSSIA, which argues fo further intervention in the OE on grounds Russians want to protect Orthodox Christians living in that Muslim regime. Other Eu powers are wary of Russian ambitions: Austria doesn't want to lose out on expanding Balkans, and F and B both want to protect their commercial interests and naval bases in the region.

In the last class, we discussed how conservative regimes managed to outwit and play the various liberal, nationalist, and socialist interests off against each other to emerge victorious after the revolutions of 1848. However, the conservative regimes are pretty smart in that they adapt, incorporating liberal and nationalist policies in their government in order to avoid further challenges to their power. Nowhere is this more evident than in places such as France, Germany and Italy amongst others. We'll start with France. So, France by 1848 established a Second Republic. However, this Second Republic doesn't last for long. Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, called 'Napoleon the Small' by detractors such as Victor Hugo (the author of such books as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Miserables), because Bonaparte didn't seem to have anything to his character except his famous name (he was the nephew of the first Napoleon). Indeed, many look down upon him for essentially using name recognition to get elected the first president of the Second Republic. Bonaparte, however, is a clever politician who knows the score with what's popular and what's not. Moreover, he isn't just content with being President of France, he wants more power, and will not be swayed by anyone. He spends the first three years of his presidency getting the people on his side, and is very popular (indeed, the fact that the remains of the first Napoleon return from St. Helena to France during his presidency only serves to make him more loved by the French people, as he plays off on his famous uncle's memory). Bonaparte is able to achieve more power when, wanting to stand for re-election even though the Second Republic's constitution opposes it, is initially met with opposition to this idea from the National Assembly. However, Napoleon quashes this opposition when he uses troops to seize control of the government on 1 December 1851. After achieving supremacy, he reinstates universal male suffrage, and asks the French people to restructure the government by electing him president for 10 years. The French people do this, voting their support with 7.5 million 'yes' votes to 640,000 'no' votes. A year later, in 1852, Bonaparte asks the people to vote on a referendum for the restoration of the French Empire, and 97 percent respond affirmatively, making Bonaparte the leader of the Second French Empire, with him taking the title of Napoleon III (Napoleon II was the first Napoleon's son, but he never ruled and died young). So by December 1852, Napoleon III is emperor. His government is initially authoritarian, but in a Bonapartist sense, with Napoleon III reasoning that 'you're basically under a bunch of institutions that were set up by the first Napoleon, so why not adopt his political institutions as well?' So Napoleon III controls the armed forces, the police, and the civil service. Only he can introduce legislation and declare war. The Legislature still exists, and is re-elected every six years by universal male suffrage, but they have no real power. The first 5 years of Napoleon III's reign are a huge success. Economically, France is doing quite well, and Napoleon uses government resources to stimulate the economy. He subsidizes the infrastructure (canals, roads, harbors, railroads, etc.), and is responsible for completing the majority of France's railways during his reign. Industrially, Napoleon III triples iron production in France, and socially he provides for the building of hospitals and free medicine for the poor, and advocates better housing for the working classes. He completely restructures the city of Paris, destroying the narrow streets and old city walls, and creating a modern Paris of broad boulevards, circular plazas, public squares, underground sewage systems, a public water supply, and gaslights to illuminate the streets. Some of this is meant, however, to control the population as well as beautify the city (the broader streets, for example, make it harder for insurrectionists to throw up barricades, and helps troops to move faster through the city to put down any resistance). Now, things go very well for awhile, but by the 1860s many have problems with Napoleon III's authoritarian regime. So Napoleon, being relatively smart at these things, takes steps to liberalize his government. He reaches out to the new working class, legalizing trade unions and granting them the right to strike. While the Legislative body, the Legislative Corps, was heavily controlled in the 1850s, by this time Napoleon III proceeds to give opposition candidates greater freedom to campaign, and the legislature now has more of a say in the government, and are now allowed to have a role in formulating the budget. This liberalization works, as by 1870, when Napoleon III holds a referendum on whether or not France should have a new constitution, the French people vote overwhelmingly to keep the imperial government, although this triumph would be short-lived, as Napoleon III was decidedly hit-and-miss when it came to foreign affairs. This isn't to say that Napoleon III is a complete failure during his reign. For example, he makes great progress in making France the arbiter of Europe when the Ottoman Empire, now in complete decline, is being taken advantage of by various European powers. By the 1850s, the Ottoman Empire, in the words of Czar Nicholas I, is 'the sick man of Europe.' This sickness has been a long one: it lost Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and Slovenia to the Austrians in 1699, loses its northern Black Sea possessions as well as what is now Eastern Romania to the Russians in the 18th and early 19thcenturies, has to accept Serbia and Greece's independence in the late 1820s, and loses Algeria to the French in 1830. Moreover, some of its richer provinces, such as Egypt, have gained autonomy. So it's on the downslide, and can't do much about it. The one European power that wants to really take advantage of this is Russia, which argues for further intervention in the Ottoman Empire on the grounds that the Russians want to protect Orthodox Christians living in that Muslim regime. The other European powers are wary of Russian ambitions: Austria doesn't want to lose out on expanding in the Balkans, and France and Britain both want to protect their commercial interests and naval bases in the region.

*The eve of colonization by Europe... West Africa: In the 17th, 18th centuries, W Africa dominated by the Ashanti, Oyo, and Benin kingdoms all centralized kingdoms. While A and O made up of the Yoruba people, B's population was largely made up of Edo people. While all three kingdoms were located near hilly and mountainous territory, all had good farmland yielded agricultural surpluses, and allowed for diversification of labor to trade and manufacturing on a pre-industrial level. Also had access to raw materials, like ivory, gold, bronze. Allowed them to produce luxury goods, and a rich material culture. 1.) Ashanti Kingdom Founded in 1670 and at height of power from 1701 to late 1800s, located in now Ghana and able to finance a lot of property through access to consideable gold fields in region. *To demonstrate the power of the king, monarchs sat on golden stool when holding court. Beginning as city-state located at Kumasi, able to through a combination of military activity and diplomacy, gain allegiance of other leaders of Ashanti city-states and forming to confederation with a common ruler and judicial system. *Allowed Ashanti state to grow into kingdom and later empire, when the A gave neighboring kingdoms and peoples choice of either joining the empire or becoming tributary states. As well as gold deposits, A access to Gulf of Guinea meant it had access to overseas trade. *Infrastructure made up of a well-maintained road system and river transport on the Niger River, and communications resembled an archaic telegraph system where messages sent via drums and could reach 200 mi. *Military could number up to 200k, and armies made up of both native and conquered peoples. Tended to have advantage over neighbors - heavily equipped with firearms, from about 1800-early 1870s almost perpetual state of war either trying to defend or expand empire, putting down rebellions, fighting neighboring peoples, or by beginning of 1820s, the British who had access to ports on the coast. *The British had a hard time fighting the A more often than not from 1820s-70s, tended to engage in diplomacy to regain their presence there (changed in 1870s, 'scramble for Africa' took place and British wanted to carve out colonial territories for selves father inland). *A gov and legal system theocratic, as king's decrees tended to language that was quasi-religious in nature, and crimes not thought so much as crimes as thought of as sins, as any infraction was an insult to the ancestors of the A, a culture whose main religiouse beliefs consisted of animism and ancestor veneration. Legal system one that consisted of a police force and one in which King largely presided over any trials for the accused. *If chief or King fails to punish such acts, he invokes the anger of the ancestors and gods, and is in danger of impeachment. Penalty for some crimes (sins) is death, but seldom imposed; more common penalty is imprisonment or banishment. *The King typically exacts or cummutes all capital cases. Commuted sentences by Kings and chiefs sometimes occur by ransom (money demanded for release) or bribe; they are regulated that they should not be mistaken for fines, but are considered as revenues to the state, which for most part welcomes quarrels and litigation. Commutations tend to be far more frequent than executions. *A repulsed by murder, and suicide considered murder. Decapitate those who commit suicide, the conventional punishment for murder. Suicide thus had contempt for the court for only King may kill an Ashanti. *In a murder trial, intent must be established. If homicide is accidental, murderer pays compensation to lineage of the deceased. Insane cannot be executed because of absence of responsible intent - except for murder or cursing the King; in the case of cursing the King, drunkenness is a valid defense. Capital crimes include murder, incest within the female or male line, intercourse with a menstruating woman, rape of a married woman, and adultery with any of the wives of a chief or the King. Assaults or insults of a chief or the court or the King also carried capital punishment. *Cursing the King, calling down powers to harm the King, is considered an unspeakable act and carries weight of death. One who invokes another to commit such an act must pay a heavy indemnity. Practitioners of harmful forms of sorcery and witchcraft receive death but not by decapitation, for their blood must not be shed. Receive execution by strangling, burning, drowning. *Ordinarly, families or lineages settle disputes between individuals. Such disputes can be brought to trial before a chief by uttering the taboo oath of a chief or the King. In the end, King's court is sentencing court, for only King can order the death penalty. Before the Council of Elders and the King's Court, litigants orate omperehensively. Anyone present can cross-examine the defendant or accuser, and if proceedings do not lead to verdict, a special witness is called to provide additional testimony. If there is only one witness, their sworn oath assures truth is told. Moreover, that he favors or is hostile to either litigant is unthinkable. Cases with no witnesses, like sorcery or adultery are settled by ordeals like drinking poision. 2.) Oyo Empire Located on border of what is now Nigeria and Benin, and was at height of power between 1600s-1800. While known culturally for its bronze work, a highly powerful military empire during heyday. It was an empire of four major regions (Metropolitan Oyo, Yorubaland, Egabo Corridor, Ajaland) and its gov was sophisticated. *Leader was the king (oba) or Alaafin of Oyo, whose status that of feudal lord who was expected to defend his tributaries and sub-rulers, as well as serve as mediator for all parties involved should there by disputes. *His position was neither hereditary or absolute, as he was chosen by legislative body the Oyo Mesi, and expected to share power with them. The people tended to be represented by the Ogboni, who voiced popular opinion and tended to be made up of religious leaders to give voice more legitimacy. So, a system of checks and balanaces in this Empire. *Oyo military made up of infantry (soldier carried large, 4x2 shield, three foot sword, and lance) and only state in the region to utilize cavalry. A strict 'do or die' policy in the military's culture; defeated soldiers expected to commit suicide than flee. Despite ruling in a largely indirect manner, kings tended to keep control over their tributaries and sub rulers. Changed by the 1750s, when palace intrigue and military defeats seriously damaged the prestige of the Alaafin (two Alaafin during this period forced to commit suicide). By time, growing Muslim pop had appeared in empire, and had little regard for king's position. *Some took advantage of the king's troubles and resulted in loss of the Egabo Corridor, and attacks by neighboring Muslim Fulani rulers who had declared jihad upon Oyo (Oyo trying to quell some revolts by Muslim subjects, giving neighboring emir justification for attack as defending fellow Muslims) finished off Empire by 1836. 3.) Kingdom of Benin Existed in one form or another since 1180 and lasted nearly 700 years before annexation by British in 1897. Unlike O and A, comparatively small with its main city Benin City starting out as fortress but then turning to full fledge city-state thanks to efforts of king, Oba Euware (1440-73). Tended not to be large kingdom, only ruled city itself and hinterland, but city was heavily fortified by walls and defended by disciplined military force, who were some of first soldiers in Africa to have access to guns thanks to trade with Portuguese (even call upon European mercenaries to help out in odd conflict like 1603-4 when hired Eu to use artillery to destroy walls in nearby town near present day Lagos). *First had contact with Portuguese then Dutch and for time dealt with British until cut off relations with them in the early 18th century (feared British had colonial designs on B, which was probably true as next time the Br ran into B conquered the place). *Benin prosperous kingdom and regularly commented on by Eu visitors, but this prosperity came at cost, as B made a lot of its money by beating up on neighboring tribes, taking their people prisoner and selling them as slaves. All three kingdoms discussed regularly sold slaves to Eu. *By 19th, when countries beginning with Britain began to ban the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1807, demanded less slaves from Africa, and instead began to trade in local raw materials they needed to supply burgeoning industries in Eu (peanuts, vegetable oil to grease machinery/make candles, palm oil for soap). However, to produce such raw materials West Africans employed not free labor but slaves, increasing slaveholding in Africa to point where on same level of being a slave society as Brazil, one of largest slaveholding countries in world! Attract attention of of countries like Britain, who would use this as an excuse to become involved in region years later.

In this lecture, I'm going to explain to you the circumstances of three regions on the eve of colonization by Europe, and what led to the environment for which colonization became possible. Africa West Africa In the 17th and 18th centuries, West Africa was dominated by the Ashanti, Oyo, and Benin kingdoms, all centralized kingdoms. While Ashanti and Oyo were made up of the Yoruba people, Benin's population was largely made up of the Edo people. While all three kingdoms were located near hilly and mountainous territory, they all had good farmland which yielded agricultural surpluses, and as a result this allowed for a diversification of labor to trade and manufacturing, albeit on a pre-industrial level. They also had access to raw materials, such as ivory, gold, and bronze. This allowed them to produce a lot of luxury goods, and a rich material culture. Ashanti The Ashanti Kingdom, founded in 1670 and at its height of power from 1701 to the late 1800s, was located in what is now Ghana, and was able to finance a lot of its prosperity via access to the considerable gold fields in that region. Indeed, in order to demonstrate the power of the king, the Ashanti monarchs sat on a golden stool when holding court. Beginning as a city-state located at Kumasi, the Ashanti were able to, via a combination of military activity as well as diplomacy, gain the allegiance of other leaders of Ashanti city-states and forming them into a confederation with a common ruler and judicial system. This allowed the Ashanti state to grow into a kingdom and later an empire, when the Ashanti gave neighboring kingdoms and peoples the choice of either joining the empire or becoming tributary states. As well as the gold deposits, Ashanti's access to the Gulf of Guinea meant that it had access to overseas trade. The infrastructure was made up of a well-maintained road system as well as river transport on the Niger River, and communications resembled that of an archaic telegraph type system where messages were sent via drums and could reach as far as 200 miles. The Ashanti military could number up to as much as 200,000, and their armies were made up of both native and conquered peoples. They tended to have an advantage over their neighbors in that they were heavily equipped with firearms, and from about 1800 to the early 1870s they were in an almost perpetual state of war either trying to defend or expand their empire, either putting down rebellions, fighting neighboring peoples or, beginning in the 1820s, the British who had access to ports on the coast. The British actually had a hard time fighting the Ashanti more often than not from the 1820s to the 1870s, and tended more often than not to engage in diplomacy in order to retain their presence there (this changed in the 1870s, when the "scramble for Africa" was taking place and the British wanted to carve out colonial territories for themselves farther inland). The Ashanti government and legal system was, strictly speaking, theocratic, as the king's decrees tended towards language that was quasi-religious in nature, and crimes were not thought so much as crimes as they were thought of as "sins," as any infractions was an insult to the ancestors of the Ashanti, a culture whose main religious beliefs consisted of animism and ancestor veneration. The legal system was one that consisted of a police force and one in which the King largely presided over any trials for the accused. If the chief or King fails to punish such acts, he invokes the anger of the ancestors and the gods, and is therefore in danger of impeachment. The penalty for some crimes (sins) is death, but this is seldom imposed; a more common penalty is banishment or imprisonment. The King typically exacts or commutes all capital cases. These commuted sentences by King and chiefs sometimes occur by ransom or bribe; they are regulated in such a way that they should not be mistaken for fines, but are considered as revenue to the state, which for the most part welcomes quarrels and litigation. Commutations tend to be far more frequent than executions. Ashanti are repulsed by murder, and suicide is considered murder. They decapitate those who commit suicide, the conventional punishment for murder. The suicide thus had contempt for the court, for only the King may kill an Ashanti. In a murder trial, intent must be established. If the homicide is accidental, the murderer pays compensation to the lineage of the deceased. The insane cannot be executed because of the absence of responsible intent - except for murder or cursing the King; in the case of cursing the king, drunkenness is a valid defense. Capital crimes include murder, incest within the female or male line, and intercourse with a menstruating woman, rape of a married woman, and adultery with any of the wives of a chief or the King. Assaults or insults of a chief or the court or the King also carried capital punishment. Cursing the King, calling down powers to harm the King, is considered an unspeakable act and carries the weight of death. One who invokes another to commit such an act must pay a heavy indemnity. Practitioners of harmful (evil) forms of sorcery and witchcraft receive death but not by decapitation, for their blood must not be shed. They receive execution by strangling, burning, or drowning. Ordinarily, families or lineages settle disputes between individuals. Nevertheless, such disputes can be brought to trial before a chief by uttering the taboo oath of a chief or the King. In the end, the King's Court is the sentencing court, for only the King can order the death penalty. Before the Council of Elders and the King's Court, the litigants orate comprehensively. Anyone present can cross-examine the defendant or the accuser, and if the proceedings do not lead to a verdict, a special witness is called to provide additional testimony. If there is only one witness, their sworn oath assures the truth is told. Moreover, that he favors or is hostile to either litigant is unthinkable. Cases with no witness, like sorcery or adultery are settled by ordeals, like drinking poison. Oyo Empire The Oyo Empire was located on the border of what is now Nigeria and Benin, and was at its height between the 1600s and the year 1800. While the Oyo Empire was known culturally for its bronzework, it was a highly powerful military empire during its heyday. It was an empire of four major regions (Metropolitan Oyo, Yorubaland, Egabo Corridor, and Ajaland), and its government was quite sophisticated. The leader was the king (oba) or Alaafin of Oyo, whose status was that of a feudal lord who was expected to defend his tributaries and sub-rulers, as well as serve as mediator for all parties involved should there be any disputes. His position was neither hereditary nor absolute, as he was chosen by the legislative body, the Oyo Mesi, and expected to share power with them. The people tended to be represented by the Ogboni, who voiced popular opinion and tended to be made up of the religious leaders as well to give their voice more legitimacy. So there was a system of checks and balances in this Empire. The Oyo military was made up of infantry (soldier carried a large, 4x2 shield, a three foot sword, and a lance), and was the only state in the region to utilize cavalry. There was a strict "do or die" policy in the military's culture; defeated soldiers were expected to commit suicide rather than flee. Despite ruling in a largely indirect manner, the kings tended to keep control over their tributaries and sub rulers. This changed by the 1750s, when palace intrigue and military defeats seriously damaged the prestige of the Alaafin (two Alaafin during this period were forced to commit suicide). By this time, a growing Muslim population had appeared in the empire, and they had little regard for the king's position. Some took advantage of the king's troubles, and this resulted in the loss of the Egabo Corridor, and attacks by the neighboring Muslim Fulani rulers who had declared jihad upon Oyo (Oyo was trying to quell some revolts by its Muslim subjects, giving the neighboring emir justification for attack as he was defending fellow Muslims) finished off the Empire by 1836. The Kingdom of Benin The Kingdom of Benin existed in one form or another since 1180, and lasted nearly 700 years before its annexation by the British in 1897. Unlike the Oyo or Ashanti, the Kingdom of Benin was comparatively small, with its main city, Benin City, starting out as a fortress but then turning into a full-fledged city-state thanks to the efforts of the king, Oba Euware (1440-1473). Benin tended not to be large kingdom, as it only ruled the city itself and its hinterland, but the city itself was heavily fortified by walls and fiercely defended by a disciplined military force, who were some of the first soldiers in Africa to have access to guns thanks to Benin's trade with the Portuguese (Benin could even call upon European mercenaries to help them out in the odd conflict, such as in 1603-4 when they hired Europeans to use artillery to destroy the walls of a nearby town near present-day Lagos). Benin first had contact with the Portuguese then the Dutch, and for a time dealt with the British until they cut off relations with them in the early 18th century (they feared the British had colonial designs on Benin, which was probably true as the next time the British ran into Benin they conquered the place!). As you can see by the slides, Benin was a prosperous kingdom and was regularly commented on by European visitors, but this prosperity came at a cost, as Benin made a lot of its money by beating up on neighboring tribes, taking their people prisoner, and selling them as slaves. Indeed, all three kingdoms discussed regularly sold slaves to the Europeans. What is interesting is that, by the nineteenth century, when countries beginning with Britain began to ban the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1807, they were demanding less slaves from Africa, and instead began to trade in local raw materials which they needed in order to supply their burgeoning industries in Europe (peanuts, vegetable oil to grease machinery/make candles, palm oil for soap, etc.). In doing so, however, to produce these raw materials, West Africans employed not free labor but rather slaves, increasing slaveholding in Africa to the point where it was on the same level of being a "slave society" as Brazil, one of the largest slaveholding countries in the world! This, of course, would attract attention of countries like Britain, who would use this as an excuse to become involved in the region in later years.

*Many in Eu and Britain are beginning to prosper from the 1840s-70s, as most countries have caught up in the age of industrialization. However it's not perfect, and many who still have problems with the new industrial world. *Trade unions and socialist parties still want more rights for workers, and their philosophy toward this is embodied in the ideas of Karl Marx. *Marx lived rom 1818-83. From a relatively well-off middle class family in Trier, Germany. Descended from long line of rabbis, his father converted to Protestantism to keep his job. Marx studied first at University of Bonn but partied too much and father response transferred him to the more serious University of Berlin, where he studies ideas of philosopher Hegel. Gets PhD in philosophy, plans to teach at a university. However, cannot get job because of his professed atheism (although getting job in philosophy is a tall order - Marx was a self-hating Jew and could be pretty anti-Semetic) and instead pursued a career in journalism, editing liberal newspaper in Cologne by 1842. Marx turns the paper radical and it gets suppressed by authorities, and then he moves to Paris. Meets man who will become his lifelong friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels (1820-95), who was son of a wealthy German cotton manufacturer. After Engels worked at one of father's factories in M-c, saw the brutal working conditions in which workers had to operate, and decried it as wage slavery, in his The Conditions on the Working Class in England (1844). Engels being a bit of a trust funder works with Marx to write on the subject, contributing his knowledge of actual working conditions and monetary assistance to Marx. Both join a group of German socialist revolutionaries known as the Communist League in 1847, and decide to write a statement on their ideas which becomes the Communist Manifesto in January 1848. Manifesto is clearly written solely on emotion than reason, and is meant to play on people's emotions with statements like Popes, Czars, Metternich, Guizot, German police spies, all working to destroy the spectre of communism in which all of the workers of the world will unite. When it first comes out nobody reads it. What are the ideas of the Communist Manifesto? Both Marx and Engels want to completely restructure society via a revolution. Believe everything evolves as result of conflicts between antagonistic elements. History is determined not by ideas but by material forces. History of existing society is history of class struggles, in which the oppressor always tries to keep the oppressed under his thumb. *In history feudal classes of Middle Ages forced to acquiesce to emerging middle classes or bourgeoisie. As the middle classes took control of gov via events starting with the FR, its ideas become the dominant views, and gov becomes its instrument to benefit the middle class and no one else. *However the middle class bourgeoisie has not completely triumphed, as they are fighting the industrial working classes (or proletariat) in a class struggle. It's a war of Haves (middle class) versus Have Nots (working classes) and it would ultimately culminate in the victory of the working classes. *The working class would then establish a dictatorship to reorganize the means of production, then a classless society would emerge and the state would wither away because there are no more classes to hold it up, and this classless, stateless society would lead to progress in science, tech, industry, greater wealth to everyone. This new society would abolish all private property and rents, institute a heavy progressive income tax, abolish all rights of inheritance, centralize finances and credit in hands of the State (no private banks), centralize transportation and communication in hands of State, give ownership of factories to State, create industrial armies to operate these factories, combine agriculture with industry, abolish the ideas of town and country, and provide free education for all. *Goes on to argue in his unfinished work Das Kapital that the working classes need to organize towards realizing this ultimate goal. Early European Socialism which might make efforts to establish some of what Marx wants is condemned by Marx, which he sees as too compromising. Social Programs in a capitalist society (which is what was being implemented at the time) would never work, as Marx believed if you were to put capitalism into any mix, capitalism would always subvert all other goals. *It should be said during 19th, Marx and Engels had point. Working conditions were horrendous, and the only people that seemed to be profiting from this new industry of the 1840s-50s were the wealthy industrialists. However, some major problems with Marxism... 1. Tends to gross overgeneralizations (not good at historical understanding, tend to leave out a whole lot of facts when those facts contradict their theories). Not everything is a class struggle, to say so discounts so many other variables and relationships in human history. 2. While a classless society sounds nice, who wants to share their wealth? Is it man's nature to share something when basically forced to do so? 3. There were excesses of some industrialists and bankers, there is a problem with the State acting as arbiter. What makes the people who run the state so much better than everyone else? How are they morally superior, and immune from corruption? People who run the state just as open to temptation as everyone else. 4. Entire theory is based on people's envy of each other and it only serves to divide people than unite people. Whole point of Marxism, to divide peple and having them fight against e-other to force this monumental violent struggle in which one group will emerge victorious over another. What is a good Utopia forged in blood? Moreover, whenever someone has tried to implement this system in real life, only people who benefit are a small political class on top who run the state

Indeed, many in Europe as well as Britain are beginning to prosper from the 1840s to the 1870s, as most countries have caught up in the age of industrialization. However, it's not perfect, and there are many who still have problems with the new industrial world. Trade unions and socialist parties still want more rights for workers, and their philosophy towards this is embodied in the ideas of Karl Marx. Who is Karl Marx? Well, considering you guys go to college and many students and professors seem to think this guy is the best (full disclosure: I don't), you may have an idea of who he is. Karl Marx lived from 1818-1883. Marx is from a relatively well-off middle class family in Trier, Germany. Though descended from a long line of rabbis, his father converted to Protestantism to keep his job. Marx studied at first at the University of Bonn, but he partied too much when he should have been studying, and his father in response transferred him to the much more serious University of Berlin, where he studies the ideas of the philosopher Hegel. Marx gets a PhD in Philosophy, and plans to teach at a University. However, he can't get a job because of his professed atheism (although getting a job in philosophy is always a tall order! And it should also be known that Marx was a self-hating Jew and could be pretty anti-Semetic), and instead pursues a career in journalism, editing a liberal newspaper in Cologne by 1842. Marx, however, turns the paper radical and as a result it gets suppressed by the authorities, and he then moves to Paris. He meets a man who will become his lifelong friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), who was the son of a wealthy German cotton manufacturer (and, to be honest, Marx is pretty good at borrowing money from the guy and never paying it back!). After Engels worked at one of his father's factories in Manchester, he saw the brutal working conditions in which the workers had to operate, and decried it as 'wage slavery,' in his The Conditions on the Working Class in England (1844). Engels, being a bit of a trust funder (my opinion), works with Marx to write on the subject, contributing his knowledge of actual working conditions as well as monetary assistance to Marx (who is always skint). They both join a group of German socialist revolutionaries known as the Communist League in 1847, and decide to write a statement on their ideas which becomes the Communist Manifesto in January 1848. The Manifesto is clearly one written solely on emotion rather than reason, and is meant to play on people's emotions, with statements like Popes, Czars, Metternich, Guizot, German police spies, all working to destroy the spectre of communism in which all of the workers of the world will unite. The thing is, when it first comes out, nobody reads it. What are the ideas of the Communist Manifesto? Well, both Marx and Engels want to completely restructure society via a revolution. They believe that everything evolves as a result of conflicts between antagonistic elements. History is determined not by ideas but by material forces. The history of existing society is the history of class struggles, in which the oppressor always tries to keep the oppressed under his thumb. In history, feudal classes of the Middle Ages are forced to acquiesce to the emerging middle classes or the bourgeoisie. As the middle classes took control of the government via events starting with the French Revolution, its ideas become the dominant views, and government becomes its instrument to benefit the middle class and no one else. However, the middle class bourgeoisie has not completely triumphed, as they are fighting the industrial working class (or proletariat) in a class struggle. It's a war of Haves (the middle class) versus the Have Nots (the working classes), and it would ultimately culminate in the victory of the working classes. The working class would then establish a dictatorship to reorganize the means of production, then a classless society would emerge and the state would wither away because there are no more classes to hold it up, and this classless, stateless society would lead to progress in science, technology, industry, and greater wealth to everyone. This new society would abolish all private property and rents, institute a heavy progressive income tax, abolish all right of inheritance, centralize finances and credit in the hands of the state (no private banks), centralize transportation and communication in the hands of the State, give ownership of factories to the State, create industrial armies to operate these factories, combine agriculture with industry, abolish the ideas of town and country, and provide free education for all. He goes on to argue in his unfinished work Das Kapital (which the Russian Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin found too boring to finish) that the working classes need to organize towards realizing this ultimate goal. Early European Socialism which might make efforts to establish some of what Marx wants is condemned by Marx, which he sees as too compromising. Social Programs in a capitalist society (which is what was being implemented at the time) would never work, as Marx believed that if you were to put capitalism into any mix, capitalism would ALWAYS subvert all other goals. Now, it should be said that, during the 19th century, Marx and Engels had a point. Working conditions were horrendous, and the only people that seemed to be profiting from this new industry of the 1840s and 50s were the wealthy industrialists. However, there are some major problems with Marxism (and yes, here's where you'll see my bias): 1) It tends towards gross overgeneralization (Marxists haven't been very good at historical understanding, as they tend to leave out a whole lot of facts when those facts contradict their theories). Not everything is a class struggle, for example, and to say so discounts so many other variables and relationships in human history as to make this assertion appear...well, petulantly childish. 2) While a classless society sounds nice, who here really wants to share their wealth? Is it in man's nature to share something when basically forced to do so? 3) Now, while I can understand the excesses of some industrialists and bankers (I mean, using taxpayers bailout money today in order to bail out banks that should have failed from their bad decisions has caused a lot of understandable anger amongst taxpayers), there is a problem with the State acting as arbiter here. It begs the question: What makes the people who run the state so much better than everyone else? How are they somehow morally superior to everyone else, and immune from corruption? Take a look at the voluminous news stories of how those who run the state are just as open to temptation as everyone else, and this is a glaring weakness of Marx's argument. 4) This entire theory is based on people's envy of each other ('I want that, that should be mine, I'm entitled to it'), and it only serves to divide people rather than unite people. This is the whole point of Marxism, to divide people and having them fight against each other in order to force this monumental, violent struggle in which one group will emerge victorious over another. But what good is a Utopia that is forged in blood? Moreover, whenever someone has tried to implement this system in real life, it's usually been nigh-on impossible and has been distorted to such a point that the only people who benefit are a small political class on top who run the state and.... Oh, shut up, Patrick Hurley, let the students make their minds up for themselves. Students, go read and use your skills to make up your own mind about it. Critical Thinkers of the World, UNITE!

India: One of greatest rulers, Aurangzeb, made major mistake of trying to impose his own Muslim religion upon largely Hindu/Sikh population. Resulted in major rebellions which put drain on emperor's resources. With his death in 1707, was a civil war between sons for several years, and the year 1719 alone witnessed rule of four different Mughal emperors. Especially problematic: complete conquest of the Indian subcontinent by Au had never fully defeated the rival Hindu power in the land, the Maratha. The Maratha using Au's policies as rod for Hindu pop a/g the Muslim regime, took advantage of chaos at the Mughal court and began to make gains a/g Mughals to point where controlled about half of country by 1760. Mughals had little money to put down such resistance (as well as for their army and bureaucracy), and couldn't borrow from bankers who were Hindu. *Mughals also had to contend with outside incursions coming from Persia, whose Safavid dynasty was replaced by one led by military genius Nader Shah (1736-47), who was a major military threat to anyone he came across (Iranians today: rank behind olny Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great as 'Best Persian Shah' when they don't refer to him as 'Second Alexander'). Nader fought successfully a/g the Ottomans, Russians, drove Afghan invaders from Iran, and then invaded Mughal India defeating an army that outnumbered him 6:1, taking the Mughal capital of Delhi and capturing the Mughal Emperor, Muhammad Shah, in battle, and only letting him go if he handed over his royal treasury and quite literally his throne. To top it off, he massacred 20-30k people in Delhi after they had killed a couple of Persian troops and sold 10k women and children to slavery. Not a guy to mess with, even if his sons and especially after he started developing paranoid delusions (blinded one son after argument where he accused him of an assassination plot, then ashamed killing all of the noble witnesses. Assassinated in 1747 after his generals feared he was going to start a purge of the military). After Nader's invasion, the Mughal Empire is a shadow of its forme self, and little support for it. *Most would rather support the Maratha, whose confederation isn't exactly all encompassing, or the British who operating in Bombay are taking more of an interest in the region thanks to Mughal defeat. *The main Br interest in India was the East India Company (Dutch and French had one before Brits forced out of market), created by crown in 1600. Company allowed a small foothold in India by Mughals from whence they could operate, and slowly but surely using a combination of military force and diplomacy, able to edge the Dutch - Portuguese - Spanish out of India. *Competition b/t Dutch and British East India Companies so intense their quarrels were cause of FOUR different Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652-4; 1665-7; 1672-4; 1780-4). British also had to contend with French whose main HQ was at Pondicherry. *By the 1750s, the Company with royal support from London conquers state of Bengal and uses newly founded city of Calcutta (as well as Bombay on W Coast and Madras on SE) to attract local Indians away from old Mughal pop centers, and to these Company run cities. *The company's influence grew greatly when the Seven Years War (1756-63) occurred, Britain hoped to kick France out forever. Efforts of Clive of India, Battle of Plassey (combined F-Mughal force) -> Fr colonial fortress of Pondicherry falling in 1761 -> British win out. By 1763, France left India to British. *The British East India Company by 1805 ruled over about a quarter of the subcontinent, and used their influence to gain powerful allies inland. Had royal support, mainly because British gov passed legislation where they were able to tax anything made in India to share in on the profits. Company would grow cotton in India, then send to industrialized Britain to make fine cotton clothing. What happened, though is while this caused Britain's industry to grow, destroyed any chance of India in industrializing, no incentives to build factories there. This arrangement clearly on side of the British, whose trade policies (advocated 'free trade' when it suited them) changed India from land which imported gold and silver to one which sold it (go out of India). Moreoever, an increasingly 'British' economy in India was one of high taxation and one where Indian businesses and farmers couldn't operate as they couldn't deal with the fact the EIC (not only controlled things financially but had might of Br military to back it up) had a monpoly over the entire place. RESENTMENT is high. *By the 1840s, EIC, under leadership of a governor-general, was drunk with its own power. Believing princely domains and native aristocrats to be outdated, company began instituting policies on the subcontinent which stripped these nobles of titles and privileges (chose to collect taxes from natives directly, which destroyed nobles' position as intermediaries and disarmed the armed retainers of these nobles, making them unemployed). *Company created a judiciary which was independent from the Indian social hierarchy, which was seen as arbitrary, high-handed, out of touch with locals. Company would also send British forces into independent states such as northern principality of Awadh and diplomatically say we're staying to protect your land, so pay us for upkeep. *By the 1840s, states like Awadh being arbitrarily annexed (despite treaties forbidding this) and India is slowly being turned into British colony with all infrastructure you'd be more likely to find in Britain than India. *Fast forward to 1857, when in order to find jobs you have a lot of Muslim and Hindu Indians serving in British Army (sepoys who were commanded by British officers). During military maneuvers, Br had replaced old muskets with new Enfield bolt-action rifle. To open up ammunition to put in the rifle, one had to bite open the cartridge (according to manufacturer had been greased with linseed oil and beeswax so it wouldn't jam the rifle). Rumor going around among sepoys (increasingly annoyed by Christian missionaries to convert them) that it was pig and cow fat to grease the cartridges, and that the British were making them violate their respective dietary laws to load the rifle. *270k Indian soldiers rose up in revolt, much to the chagrin of the 40k British soldiers serving alongside them, and the Indian Revolt of 1857-8 began. A good number of the 200M other Indians decided to rise up in revolt too, all of whom had suffered as a result of the policies of the EIC (artisans, peasants, day laborers, religious leaders). *While many Indian princes and aristocrats didn't support the rebellion, a lot of dispossessed aristocrats who did. Peasants began destroying prisons, factories, police stations, railway stations, courthouses - anything built by the EIC. But the rebellion wasn't truly united, as most people in revolt tended to both think and act locally, and none of these groups thought to unite into one force to overwhelm the British (still have caste system too, only so far that a brahmin and an untoucahble will go to work together). *British in response acted as British Empire would: with brutal force. Defeated the rebels, burned their villages, and even tying captured insurgents to cannots to blow to bits to cause everyone else to lose heart. Rebellion is put down in a year, but rebels do accomplish something. EIC no longer in charge! Queen Victoria (1838-1901) now said to be the one responsible for running India, promised rel toleration - improvements in living - ability of Indians to serve in the colonial gov regardless of b-ground. No interference in the internal affairs of Indian princes or chieftans within their areas, all treaties and agreements with them would be honored. Did not solve anything in India but did quiet things down, indeed QV profited from this in her favorite PM Disraeli managed to get Parliament to vote her the title of Empress of India.

India When we last discussed the Mughals, one of their greatest rulers, Aurangzeb, had made the major mistake of trying to impose his own Muslim religion upon a largely Hindu/Sikh population. This resulted in major rebellions which put a drain on the empire's resources. With Aurangzeb's death in 1707, there was a civil war between his sons for several years, and the year 1719 alone witnessed the rule of four different Mughal emperors. This was especially problematic, as complete conquest of the Indian Subcontinent by Aurangzeb was only very recent, and Aurangzeb had never fully defeated the rival Hindu power in the land, the Maratha. The Maratha, using Aurangzeb's policies as a lightning rod for the Hindu population against the Muslim regime, took advantage of the chaos at the Mughal court and began to make gains against the Mughals to the point where they controlled about half the country by 1760. The Mughals had little money to pay to put down such resistance (as well as for their army and bureaucracy), and couldn't exactly borrow from the bankers, who were all Hindu! On top of this, the Mughals also had to contend with outside incursions coming from Persia, whose Safavid Dynasty was replaced with one led by the military genius Nader Shah (1736-1747), who was a major military threat to anyone he came across (Iranians to this day say he ranks behind only Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great as "Best Persian Shah," that is, when they don't refer to him as "The Second Alexander"). Nader fought successfully against the Ottomans, the Russians, drove Afghan invaders from Iran, and then invaded Mughal India, defeating an army that outnumbered him 6 to 1, taking the Mughal capital of Delhi and capturing the Mughal Emperor, Muhammad Shah in battle, and only letting him go if he handed over his royal treasury as well as...quite literally, the Mughal throne! To top it off, he massacred 20-30,000 people in Delhi after they had killed a couple of Persian troops, and sold 10,000 women and children into slavery. Not a guy to mess with, even if you were his sons and especially after he started developing paranoid delusions (Nader blinded one son after an argument where he accused him of an assassination plot, then, instantly ashamed, started killing all of the noble witnesses. He was assassinated in 1747 after his generals feared he was going to start a purge of the military).[1] After Nader's invasion, the Mughal Empire is a shadow of its former self, and there is little support for it. Most would rather support the Maratha, whose confederation isn't exactly all encompassing, or the British who, operating in Bombay, are taking more of an interest in the region thanks to the Mughal defeat. The main British interest in India was the East India Company (the Dutch and French also had one before the Brits forced them out of the market), created by the crown in 1600. The Company was allowed a small foothold in India by the Mughals from whence they could operate, and slowly but surely, using a combination of military force and diplomacy, was able to edge the Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish out of India. Competition between the Dutch and British East India Companies were so intense that their quarrels were the causes of four different Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652-4; 1665-7; 1672-4; 1780-4). As well as this, the British also had to contend with the French, whose main headquarters was at Pondicherry. By the 1750s, the Company, with royal support from London, conquers the state of Bengal and uses the newly founded city of Calcutta (as well as Bombay on the Western Coast and Madras on the southeastern coast) to attract local Indians away from old Mughal population centers, and over to these Company run cities. The company's influence grew greatly when the Seven Years War (1756-63) occurred, where Britain hoped to kick France out once and for all. Thanks to the efforts of Clive of India, the British got the upper hand, defeating a combined French/Mughal force at the battle of Plassey. This is followed up by the French colonial fortress of Pondicherry falling to the British in 1761. The British win out partly because of their persistence, but also because of Indian elites and princes siding with them as a way to neutralize what remained of their Mughal overlords. By 1763, the French left India to the British. The British East India Company by 1805 ruled over about a quarter of the subcontinent, and used their influence to gain powerful allies inland. They had royal support, mainly because the British government passed legislation where they were able to tax anything made in India in order to share in on the profits. The Company would grow cotton in India, then send it to an industrialized Britain to make fine cotton clothing. What happened, however, is that while this caused Britain's industry to grow, it destroyed any chance India had at industrializing as there were no incentives to build factories there. Moreover, this arrangement was clearly on the side of the British, whose trade policies (they advocated "free trade" when it suited them) changed India from a land which imported gold and silver to one which sold it (and caused it to go out of India!). Moreover, an increasingly "British" economy in India was one of high taxation as well as one where Indian businesses and farmers could not operate as they couldn't deal with the fact that the East India Company (which not only controlled things financially but had the might of the British military to back it up) had a monopoly over the entire place. Resentment was high. By the 1840s, the East India Company, under the leadership of a governor-general, was drunk with its own power. Believing princely domains and native aristocrats to be outdated, the company began instituting policies on the subcontinent which stripped these nobles of their titles and privileges (they also chose to collect taxes from the natives directly, which destroyed the nobles' position as intermediaries, and disarmed the armed retainers of these nobles, making them unemployed). Moreover, the Company created a judiciary which was independent from the Indian social hierarchy, which was seen as arbitrary, high-handed, and out-of touch by the local Indians. The company would also send British forces into independent states such as the northern principality of Awadh and basically (in diplomatic British language, mind you) say: we're staying here...to protect your land...so pay us for the upkeep. By the 1840s, states like Awadh were being arbitrarily annexed (despite treaties forbidding this), and India is slowly being turned into a British colony with all of the infrastructure you'd be more likely to find in Britain rather than India. Fast forward to 1857, when in order to find jobs, you have a lot of Muslim and Hindu Indians serving in the British Army (sepoys who were commanded by British officers). During military maneuvers, the British had replaced the old muskets with the new Enfield bolt-action rifle. Now, to open up the ammunition to put in the rifle, one had to bite open the cartridge, which, according to the manufacturer, had been greased with linseed oil and beeswax so that it wouldn't jam in the rifle. However, rumor had been going around among the sepoys (who were being increasingly annoyed by Christian missionaries to convert them) that in actuality pig and cow fat had been used to grease the cartridges, and that the British were making them violate their respective dietary laws in order to load the rifle. So what happens is that 270,000 Indian soldiers rose up in revolt, much to the chagrin of the 40,000 British soldiers serving alongside them, and the Indian Revolt of 1857-8 began. Unfortunately for the British, a good number of the other 200 million Indians decided to rise up in revolt as well, all of whom had suffered as a result of the policies of the East India Company (artisans, peasants, day laboers, religious leaders, etc.). Moreover, while many Indian princes and aristocrats didn't support the rebellion, there were a lot of dispossessed aristocrats who did. Peasants began destroying Prisons, factories, police stations, railway stations, courthouses...anything built by the East India Company. However, the rebellion wasn't truly united, as most people in revolt tended to both think and act locally, and none of these groups thought to unite into one force that could have overwhelmed the British (moreover, you still have the caste system in effect, so there is only so far that, say, a brahmin and an untouchable will go to work together!). The British in response acted as the British Empire would: with brutal force. They defeated the rebels, burning their villages, and even tying captured insurgents to cannons and blow them to bits in order to cause everyone else to lose heart. The rebellion is put down in a year, but the rebels do accomplish something. The East India Company was no longer in charge. Queen Victoria (1838-1901) was now said to be the one responsible for running India, and promised religious toleration, improvements in living, as well as the ability of Indians to serve in the colonial government regardless of their background. There would be no interference in the internal affairs of Indian princes or chieftans within their areas, and all treaties and agreements with them would be honored. This did not solve everything in India (just ask Ghandi!) but it did quiet things down, and indeed Queen Victoria profited from this in that her favorite, the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, managed to get Parliament to vote her the title Empress of India, something I'm sure that she appreciated. [1] There is a saying in Iran: Build a Gold Statue of Nader the Great. Then Burn it.

*How does industrialization transfer to the Continent? Well before 1850, industrialization only spreads to places like Low Countries and German States, and USA. These places go through same process of agricultural advances -> pop growth -> specialization of labor -> expansion of cottage industries into factories. Industrialization doesn't spread as quickly to the Continent mainly because don't have the same things B has to achieve industrialization as quickly. *Aren't many good roads, have problems with transportation via rivers. Tolls collected on these roads and waterways, makes goods more expensive. Guild restrictions stand in way, prevalent and tend to create culture of protectionism that doesn't exist in B. Continental investors and entrepreneurs don't take many risks, especially if failure means families will pay for it (prevailing thrift on Continent makes risk takers a rarity); tend to adhere to the traditional attitudes to Continental business, like dislike of competition. Environment is initially hostile to industrialization. Also a hurdle is lack of technological knowledge, and when Continental businesses try to borrow Br techiniques, B try to prevent by keeping B artisans from leaving country (at least up to 1825). Until 1842, B forbid export of important machinery and machine parts. Lot of peple get around this legislation by simply leaving country in secret and selling to various Eu interests. So by 1840s, Continental countries are catching up and then spreading knowledge to neighbors, know-on effect of industrialization. This is no thanks to roles of various Eu govs. Unlike B, Eu businesses are accustomed to heavy involvement of gov in economic affairs. Furthering industrialization is an extension. *So govs in Eu try to provide for cost of technical education, provide grants/incentives for investors and foreign entrepreneurs, exempt foreign industrial equipment from import duties, even finance factories in some places. Govs also sponsor building of roads and canals, construct r-roads. What private sector can do quickly, gov does VERY slowly. So while B is dominated by railroads in 1850, only in Germany and Belgium are amount of rails comparable. Covs on the Continent also try to use tariffs to encourage industrialization. When after 1815, cheap B goods are flooding the markets, Fr respond tby smacking high tariffs on those goods in order to aid their own fledgling industries. *Indeed tariffs seen as all-important by many of Eu interests. As economist Friedrich List argued, to be able to industrialize, protective tariffs are needed. If we buy all cheap B goods and allow for free market, then the infant industries of Eu never allowed to flourish. Eu industry does grow but more slowly, and by 1850 B not alone in the industry: France, Belgium, Germany all making gains. Here's the thing: industrialization did not spread much outside B, Western Eu, and US before 1870. As a result lot of world is lagging behind. *Eastern Europe, especially Russia, remains largely rural and agricultural, and peasants still kept under serfdom. Not a middle class in Russia, Tsarist regime prefers not to import industrial goods as they afraid any change will upset order. No real industrialization in Russia until end of 19th. *In other areas, such as India, deliberate policy by Br to prevent growth of mechanized industry there. Because India place B wants to import raw materials for manufacture in Britain, so B interests there's no industrialization there. Not only example of Eu states trying to prevent industrialization in colonial dominions, and third world countries emerge out of this after colonial empires are gone. Despite this prosperity, not everyone is profiting from IR. Areas like Ireland, under Br rule, have remained rural and under industrialized. Indeed Catholic Irish have depended on introduction of potato to their land as staple of diet. With potato, witness major growth of population to land, from 4M to 8M between 1781-1845. *Half the Irish pop depended on potato for survival, so when the blight hit potato and destroys crop between 1845-51 see Irish pop get decimated, 1M dead and another 2M emigrating to US and Britain. *Irish looked to B gov to help (Ireland became part of GB after Act of Union in 1801). But L-F attitude of gov prevents this! *Lack of response only causes resentment in Ireland, create long memories that culminate in anti-Br feeling. *Irish aren't only people emigrating: Between 1821-50 despite industrialization in some areas, others remain backward and witness much of population leaving for better prospects. Bad harvests during 1846-7 (Eu) especially encouraged emigration from places like Ireland and German States. Those rural peasants who do not wish to emigrate might move to the cities instead, where IR has guaranteed much work. *But with cities growing e-day, cities selves can't keep up with such growth. Produces miserable living conditions for many, indeed IR with its growth of middle class and people getting rich... those at the bottom in the cities starting to get envious, class envy is intensified when see people doing better than them. The urban poor usually live in 1-2 room tenements, overcrowded. Sanitary conditions in cities not kept up to speed with pop growth, so sanitation policy is nearly non-existent (city govs at first don't provide much direction). *Smell horrible, can smell human excrement on an e-day basis with horses, cattle, not unusual. Constant burning of coal from houses + factories cover city in soot (no policy for air pollution either) and to breathe is not best in some areas. *When you have things like Corn Law, expensive even for urban poor to purchase staples like bread. So in response to this getting appearance of a lot of urban reformers who want to improve living conditions of urban poor. In Britain, Poor Law Commission is set up to investigate living conditions in cities as well as what can be done. After investigating, members of commission state despite squalor in which UP (urban poor) lived, condition could be improved and such bad conditions eliminated. For example, leader of commission Edwin Chadwick, advocated overhaul of modern sanitary reform in cities to accommodate growing pops like large sewers, supply of piped clean running water. *Six years after report in 1848, first British Public Health Act is passed - which a National Board of Health is created to ensure proper and uniform sanitation existed in cities. Many of rich and upper class as well as middle class support such reforms not because they wish to make things better for fellow man but because of fear of cholera, feared could spread to them. Rampant in crowded cities. *As soon as those in power found disease was spread through insufficient sanitation of water, took measures to improve situation. *As well as bad living conditions, faced bad working conditions. Time before unions, worker at MERCY of bosses, who want men to work longer hours with shifts ranging from 12-16 hours, six days a week, half an hour for lunch and dinner. No employment security, no minimum wage. *Worse place to work: cotton mills, where temperatures so hot to be debilitating. Conditions in coal mines also harsh, where men, women, children have to haul coal out of mines on rails. Dangers included cave-ins, explosions, gas fumes. Conditions cramped (3-4 ft high tunnels) and constant work in mines could mean things like lung damage, deformed stature, and conjunctivitis. Child labor also exploited especially in cotton mills, where children seen as most delicate operators of looms and best. Smaller size made easier to crawl under machines to grab loose cotton. Children not paid well (1/6-1/3 average man), in cotton industry make up nearly 1/3 of workforce. *Just kids who have parents! Ones who don't are pauper apprentices, orphans who wind up looking for cheap source of labor. Working in workhouses, which are built on the assumption those working there much have done s-thing to deserve it, so therefore workhouses are designed and run like prisons. Children work murderous hours, fed little, no recreational activities. Can understand how working conditions for children changed. Before IR, take part and participate in work but done under much less appalling conditions. But in the 1840s-50s, life of UP child little better than slavery. Things not much better for women, seeing more demand not necessarily for gov to control means of production than serve as referees and establish standards to ensure safety of workers. Also getting beginnings of trade unions, skilled workers organize to demand better working conditions. Knock-on effect with politics! Less people satisfied with conservatism of early 19th, more looking to classical liberalism, socialism, even Marxist communism.

So how does industrialization transfer from Britain over to the Continent? Well, before 1850, industrialization only spreads in Europe to places like the Low Countries and the German States, as well as in the United States of America. These places go through the same process of agricultural advances -> population growth -> specialization of labor to manufactured goods -> expansion of cottage industries into factories, etc. But the thing is, industrialization doesn't spread as quickly in Continental Europe as it does in Britain, mainly because they don't have the same things that Britain has in order to achieve industrialization as quickly. There aren't many good roads on the Continent at this time, they have problems with transportation via rivers. Tolls are collected on these roads and waterways, and that makes goods more expensive. Guild restrictions stand in the way as well, as they are prevalent and tend create a culture of protectionism that does not exist in Britain. Moreover, Continental investors and entrepreneurs don't take as many risks as the British do, especially if failure means their families will pay for it (moreover, the prevailing thrift on the Continent also makes risk takers there a rarity); they tend to adhere to the traditional attitudes towards Continental business, such as a dislike of competition. So there are numerous hurdles the Continental countries face; the environment is initially hostile towards industrialization. Also a hurdle is the lack of technological knowledge, and when Continental businesses try to borrow British techniques re: technology, the British, understandably, try to prevent that by doing things like keeping British artisans from leaving the country (at least up until 1825). Until 1842, the British forbid the export of important machinery and machine parts. That being said, a lot of people get around this legislation by simply leaving the country in secret and selling the technology to various European interests. So by the 1840s, the Continental countries are catching up and then spreading that knowledge to their neighbous, which has a knock-on effect of industrialization. This is, of course, no thanks to the roles of these various European governments. Unlike the British, European businesses are accustomed to the heavy involvement of government in economic affairs. Furthering industrialization is an extension of this. So governments in Europe try to provide for the cost of technical education, provide grants and incentives for investors and foreign entrepreneurs, and exempt foreign industrial equipment from import duties, and even finance factories in some places. Governments also sponsor the building of roads and canals, and construct railroads. This being said, what the private sector can do quickly, the government does VERY VERY slowly (just compare how long it is taking on the construction of the Freedom Tower today when compared with the construction of the Empire State Building back in 1932). So while Britain is dominated by railroads in 1850, only in Germany and Belgium are the amount of rails comparable. Governments on the Continent also try to use tariffs to encourage industrialization. When after 1815, cheap British goods are flooding the markets, the French respond by smacking high tariffs on those goods in order to aid their own fledgling industries. Indeed, tariffs are seen as all-important by many of these European interests. An economist, Friedrich List, for example, argued that, in order to be able to industrialize, protective tariffs are needed. If we all buy cheap British goods and allow for the free market, List argued, then the infant industries of Europe would never be allowed to flourish. So it is in this milieu that European industry grows, albeit more slowly, and by 1850 Britain isn't alone in industry: France, Belgium, and Germany are all making industrial gains. Now, we could go deeper into this discussion, and there is material I haven't really gone into (for example, I've spared you the finer details of cotton production), but if you want you can look at how things fared in the U.S., etc. Now, here's the thing. Before 1870, industrialization did not spread all that much outside Britain, Western Europe, or the United States. So as a result, a lot of the world is lagging behind. Eastern Europe, especially Russia, remains largely rural and agricultural, and peasants are still kept under serfdom. There isn't really a middle class in Russia, and the Tsarist regime prefers not to import industrial goods as they are afraid that any change will upset their order. As a result, you have no real industrialization in Russia until the end of the 19th century. In other areas, such as India, there is a deliberate policy by the British to prevent the growth of mechanized industry there. This is because India is the place where Britain wants to import its raw materials for manufacture in Britain, so it's in the British interests that there's no industrialization there. This isn't the only example of European states trying to prevent industrialization in their colonial dominions, and third world countries emerge out of this after the colonial empires are gone. Now, despite this prosperity, not everyone is profiting from the industrial revolution. Areas such as Ireland, under British Rule, have remained rural and under industrialized. Indeed, the Catholic Irish have depended for a while on the introduction of the potato to their land as a staple of their diet. With the potato, we witness a major growth of population in the land, from 4 million to 8 million between 1781-1845. The big thing is, half the Irish population depended on the potato for survival, so when the blight hits the potato and pretty much destroys the crop between 1845 and 1851, you see the Irish population get decimated, with 1 million dead, an another 2 million emigrating to the United States and Britain. The Irish looked to the British government to help them (after all, Ireland had become part of Great Britain with their Act of Union in 1801). But the lasseiz faire attitude of the government prevents this. See, lasseiz faire is a good idea when operating on a day-to-day basis with no crisis in sight. But when millions of people are dying, well, you can see how it's a bad idea for Britain to not do anything about it. This lack of response only causes resentment in Ireland, and will create long memories that will culminate in anti-British feeling down the road. Indeed, the Irish aren't the only people emigrating. Between 1821 and 1850, despite industrialization in some areas, others which remain pretty backward witness much of its population leaving for better prospects. Bad harvests in Europe during 1846-7 especially encouraged emigration from places such as Ireland and the German States. Those rural peasants who do not wish to emigrate might instead move to the cities, where the industrial revolution has guaranteed more work. But with cities growing every day, the cities themselves can't keep up with such growth (yesterday your city only has 50,000 people, but a few years on it's ballooned to 200,000), and this produces miserable living conditions for many. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution, with its growth of a middle class, and people getting rich...well, those at the bottom in the cities are starting to get envious, and this class envy is intensified when they see people doing better than them. The urban poor usually live in one or two room tenements, and it's usually overcrowded. Sanitary conditions in these cities have not kept up to speed with population growth, so the sanitation policy is nearly non-existent (the city governments at first don't provide much direction). They smell horrible, and if you smell human excrement on an everyday basis along with that of horses, cattle, etc., it's not unusual. The constant burning of coal from houses and factories covers cities in soot (these guys didn't have any policy with regard to air pollution) and to breathe is not the best idea in some areas. Moreover, when you have things like that Corn law I was talking about in Britain, well then it's expensive even for the urban poor to afford staples such as bread. So in response to this you're getting the appearance of a lot of urban reformers who want to improve the living conditions of the urban poor. In Britain, a Poor Law Commission is set up to investigate living conditions in cities as well as what can be done about it. After investigating, the members of the commission stated that despite the squalor in which the urban poor lived, their condition could have been improved and such bad conditions could be eliminated. For example, the leader of the commission, Edwin Chadwick, advocated an overhaul of modern sanitary reform in the cities to accommodate these growing populations (so better, larger sewers, supply of piped clean running water, etc.). Six years after his report, in 1848, The first British Public Health Act is passed, in which a National Board of Health is created to ensure proper and uniform sanitation existed in the cities. Many of the rich and upper class as well as the middle class support such reforms, not because of their wish to make things better for their fellow man, but rather because of their fear of the disease known as cholera, which they feared could spread to them (it's especially rampant in over crowded cities). As soon as those in power found that the disease was spread through insufficient sanitation of the water, they took measures to improve the situation. As well as bad living conditions, workers face not the best working conditions. This is a time before unions, and workers are at the mercy of their bosses, who want their men to work longer hours, with shifts ranging from 12 to 16 hours, six days a week, with half an hour for lunch and dinner. There's no employment security, and no minimum wage. The worst place to work are the cotton mills, where temperatures were so hot as to be debilitating. Conditions in coal mines are also harsh, where men, women, and children have to haul the coal out of the mines on rails. Dangers included cave-ins, explosions, and gas fumes. The conditions are cramped (3 or 4 foot high tunnels), and constant work in the mines could mean things like lung damage, deformed stature, and things like conjunctivitis. Child labor is especially exploited, especially in the cotton mills where they are seen as the most delicate operators of the looms and therefore the best. Moreover, their smaller size makes it easier for them to crawl under the machines to grab loose cotton. Children aren't paid as well (usually 1/6 to 1/3 of what a man was paid), and in the cotton industry they make up nearly one third of the workforce. And that's just the kids who have parents. The ones who don't end up being pauper apprentices, who are orphans who wind up in the care of the local parishes, who then are used to be apprenticed to factory owners looking for a cheap source of labor. They're working in workhouses, which are built on the assumption that those working there must have done something to deserve it, so therefore workhouses are designed and run like prisons as much as possible (hence the problems of real life Oliver Twists) These children work murderous hours, are fed little and have no recreational activities to speak of. But in any case, you can understand how the working conditions for children changed. Before the Industrial Revolution, they would take part and participate in work, but this was under much less appalling conditions. But in the 1840s and 1850s, the life of an urban poor child is little better than slavery. Things aren't much better for women, and you're seeing more and more demand not necessarily for the Government to control the means of production, but rather to serve as referees and establish standards to ensure the safety for workers. You're also getting the beginnings of trade unions, in which skilled workers organize in order to demand better working conditions. We'll talk about the development of those in our next class, but you can see how this had a knock-on effect with regard to politics. Less people are feeling satisfied by the conservatism of the early 19th century, and more are looking to things like classical liberalism, socialism, and even Marxist communism. We'll discuss those as well next time around.

*We turn back to France, where Charles X is trying to curtail efforts of the French liberals so he can remain more absolutist ruler. In 07/1830 issues series of edicts called the July Ordinances which imposed rigid censorship of the press, dissolved legislature, and reduced electorate before preparing for EVEN MORE elections. Wants to rig game in his favor, and Paris rises up in Rebellion in what is called the July Revolution. Provisional government rises up in opposition to Charles, led by propertied moderate classical liberals, who appeal to Louis-Philippe, Duke of Orleans (Charles' cousin) to become new king of France under a constitutional monarchy. Louis Philippe agrees; Charles flees to England. *Louis-Philippe is called the bourgeois monarch, because support he had came from the upper class. As willing to recognize more liberal constitution, however his supporters call him the Citizen King. L-P even dressed not as monarch but as member of the middle class in business suits, etc. *Instituted policies that benefited the upper middle class, reducing financial qualifications for voting (though only increases the electorate from 100k to 200k, so only wealthiest middle class can vote). However seen as just one step in political progress. *The lower middle and poorer classes see this as just another time when they've been excluded from system (after all helped overthrow Charles, and look what they got). With rapid industrialization during time and its bad side-effects, an industrial working class is created in which suffer from a lot of bad working conditions, living conditions. *This serves to only make them resentful: Even in the French Chamber of Deputies, differences on how far the bourgeois monarchy should go and what direction it should take. Two groups emerge... One led by Adolphe Thiers, Party of Movement, it favors minsterial responsibility, active foreign policy, and limited expansion of political franchise. Second party, Party of Resistance, led by Francois Guizot, believes France by this time doing just fine and no further change needed! After 1840, PoR dominates the CoD and Guizot works with king to do things like suppress ministerial responsibility and pursue policiy that favors more well-to-do middle class. Liberals play a prime role in the Revolution of 1830 in France (July Revolution), but in other Eu countries, nationalism is crucial force in 1830. In 1815, part of Congress of Vienna, Metternich had the Dutch Netherlands incorporate the Austrian Netherlands into its state. Merger of Catholic Belgium with Protestant Nehterlands not something Belgians big fan of, and in 1830 rise up and succeed in having the Great Powers accept their independence, under rule of a constitutional monarch (Leopold of Saxe-Coburg). While nationalist revolution is successful in Belgium, not so much in Italy. *Metternich good at sending Austrian troops there whenever they rise up. In Poland, nationalist uprising occurs there in 1830, when revolutionaries try to overthrow Russian rule. Fail to get support from France, Britain, which they hoped, and by 1831 Russians crushed Poles and established military dictatorship over country. What's going on in Britain? *New Parliamentary elections in 1830 bring the Whig Party into power after years of Tory rule. Talking about the IR and the good things as well as bad things that come with it. Can no longer be ignored, and things like rotten boroughs being more represented in places like Manchester and Liverpool is becoming increasingly unacceptable amongst larger segment of the British population. *So by 1832, Whigs introduce a Reform Act to provide for electoral reform. Rotten boroughs (56) are disenfranchised. Instead 42 new towns and cities are! Gives new industrial communities a voice in government. *A property qualification for voting was retained though, 10 pounds of sterling of annual rent ($750), and numbers of voters increase from 478k to 814k, a figure that still means only one in every 30 people represented in Parliament. *Reform largely benefits the upper middle class. Change doesn't naturally alter the character/composition of the members of the House of Commons. 1830s, 40s however see more reform in Britain. During this time, Parliament begins to correct some of worst abuses of the IR by instituting government regulations to improve working conditions in factories and mines. *Industrialists and manufacturers in Parliament opposed this to degree, and oppostion to the Poor Law of 1834 is engineered to make being a pauper so bad they have to work. So as result, while you see some reform, things like workhouses still around and poor are forced into these. Now, wasn't supposed to be permanent, as theory went these people working in these intentionally miserable workhouses would be encouraged to find better + more profitable employment (Drawback to theory - what kind of employment do these people find if they've ONLY worked in workhouses?) *Other pieces of legislation include repeal of Corn Laws. Big deal, two manufacturers (Cobden and Bright, formed anti-Corn Law league in 1838 to help workers by lowering bread prices). Was in line with classical liberal thinking, as to abolish these laws would encourage free trade. Repeal comes in 1846 under Robert Peel, leader of Tories. Move towards reform keeps Britain from going through a major revolution. Not so in Europe by 1848, where liberalism and nationalism openly challenging the conservative status quo to force changes in way things are done. *Revolutions take place in France, when severe agricultural and industrial depression hits country - brings whole lot of grief on poorer classes. 1/3 of Parisian workers by 1847 unemployed. Gov is also suffering from scandals, corruption, strife, and its refusal to extend suffrage to the larger population angers lower middle and poorer classes. *Louis-Philippe refuses to change things any further, and comes in conflict with liberals, radical republicans, and socialists. The Party of Movement, under Adolphe Thiers joins these forces in opposition of the king, and Thiers agitates for dismissal of king's chief minister, Guizot, advocating so at banquets, as rallies at time not allowed. *70 banquets are held in France in couple of years leading up to 1848. When one is planned for Paris in February of 1848, forbidden by gov, but people come anyway, and students and workers throw up barricades in Paris. Although king now tries to propose reform, too little too late and unable to form a new gov, abdicates, and flees to Britain. *A provisional gov is set up, run by radical republicans and even the socialist Louis Blanc. The gov's first efforts are directed to universal manhood suffrage! *Establishes workshops along lines of LB's vision, but bad time to do - not only does it not cater to skilled workers (most jobs were sweeping and raking), costs $ and burden to gov. Workshop issue causes growing split, between moderate and more radical republicans whose main support comes from Parisian working class. Meanwhile, with new elections it becomes clear electorate aren't fans of more radical measures. 500 seats in new National Assembly go to moderate republicans, 300 to monarchists, and 100 to radicals. Unemployment is high, workshops that Blanc sponsored see enrollment go from 10k to almost 120k from March to June, emptying treasury and frightening moderates, who respond by closing the workshops on June 23. Workers, not recognizing there's no money to pay for this, pour into streets in protest rising up in revolt and fighting gov forces. Bloody June revolt lasts 4 days and kills thousands, and 4,000 of rioters are sent off to French colony of Algeria to do hard labor. A new constitution is drawn up in November 1848, establishing Second Republic of France. Has one house legislature of 750 people elected via universal manhood suffrage, serving 3-year terms while a president also elected by universal male suffrage for a 4-year term. *In first election, are five candidates, four of them members of the groups who wrote up the consittution and were responsible for creation of the Second Republic. All defeated by the fifth candidate, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who is elected first president of the Second Republic, but the Republic's days are already numbered as by 1852, Napoleon gets imperial ambitions just like uncle and manipulates gov into proclaiming him emperor of the Second French Empire by 1852. New of the 1848 revolution in Paris spreads to Central Europe, and in the German states there are cries for the rulers there to introduce jury trials, free press, constitutions, and other liberal reforms. *In Prussia concesssions made by Frederick William IV (1840-61), who abolishes censorship, establishes new constitution, and makes promises to work toward a united Germany. At same time things like universal manhood suffrage is introduced in German States, and reflected in those representatives going to a meeting of the German Confederation in Frankfurt to form the Frankfurt assembly, with aim of working toward German unity. Most of the delegates are well-educated middle class liberals and nationalists. *However nationalist feeling at the assembly arouses controversy, as it claims to be the government of all Germany. Moreover, there is infighting between delegates over what kind of German state to form. *Do they form a Grossdeutsch (big German) state, where they include Austria, or form a Kleindeutsch state (small German) where Austria is excluded and the new country would be ruled by the Prussian king? Austria agrees to leave the Confederation, and supporters of Small German state win out. However, when offer FWIV the title of Emperor of Germany, he refuses ordering the Prussian delegates home. *Frankfurt assembly disbands, as though they agree with each other, can't really tell various rulers of the German states what to do or to accept constitution for a new Germany. So German liberals FAIL to unify Germany, although unification isn't far off. Perhaps one of the reasons Austria left German Confederation was that it had problems of own in 1848. *When Hungarians in the Austrian Empire under Louis Kossuth hear of revolt in Paris, inspired and agitate for a commonwealth status for Hungary, where they keep Habsburg monarch but want own legislature to represent them. *Follow up on this with demonstrations in Buda, Prague, Vienna, and Metternich after so many years of fighting for conversation is dismissed by emperor and flees abroad. In Vienna, a well organized uprising by liberals take control of capital insisting on a constitution being drawn up and constituent assembly being formed to perform this task. *Not only is Hungary making noise, but Czechs in north are. Emperor Ferdinand I (1835-48) decides to play long game to crush liberals. While he offers concessions to quiet them, he waits for them to start fighting amongst e-other as they always inevitably do. Once moderates and radicals start taking shots at one another, conservatives chime in, driving wedge between moderates and radicals by saying to the moderates, 'those radicals will screw you over because they have no problem putting together a working class revolution to destroy us all.' *And while the revolutionaries are fighting amongst e-other, too preoccupied when Ferdinand and his conservative allies start smahing the revolutionaries, suppressing Czech rebels in Prague in June 1848. In October, death of the war minister at the hands of a Viennese mob gives conservatives and emperor more fuel for fire, and use this death as excuse to crush radicals there. *In December, Ferdinand now sick, agrees to abdicate in favor of his son Francis Joseph I (1848-1916), and young Francis manages to restore imperial gov in Hungary. Unable to defeat Hungrian military resistance under Kossuth, however, and need help of the interventionist army of the Policeman of Europe, Nicholas I, who sends 140k army to crush Hungarians, which it does by 1849. Revolution in Austria fails!

So those are the three ideologies rising in opposition to conservatism, and conservative dominance is being challenged around the year 1830. We turn back to France, where Charles X is trying to curtail the efforts of the French liberals so he can remain a more absolutist ruler. In July 1830, he issues as series of edicts called the July Ordinances which imposed a rigid censorship of the press, dissolved the legislature, and reduced the electorate before preparing for even MORE elections. Charles basically wants to rig the game in his favor, and Paris rises up in Rebellion in what is called the July Revolution. A provisional government rises up in opposition to Charles, led by propertied moderate classical liberals, who appeal to Louis-Philippe, the Duke of Orleans (Charles' cousin), to become the new king of France under a constitutional monarchy. Louis Philippe agrees and Charles X flees to England. Louis-Philippe is called the 'bourgeois monarch,' because the support he had came from the upper class. As he is willing to recognize a more liberal constitution, however, his supporters call him the 'Citizen King.' Louis-Philippe even dressed not as a monarch but as a member of the middle class in business suits, etc. He instituted policies that benefited the upper middle class, reducing financial qualifications for voting (although he only increases the electorate from 100,000 to 200,000 people, so only the wealthiest middle class can vote). This, however, is seen as just one step in political progress. However, the lower middle and poorer classes see this as just another time when they've been excluded from the system (they after all helped overthrow Charles X, and look what they got for it). With the rapid industrialization during this time and its bad side-effects, an industrial working class is created in which they suffer from a lot of bad working conditions, living conditions, etc. And this serves to only make them resentful. Even in the French Chamber of Deputies, there are differences on how far the bourgeois monarchy should go and what direction it should take. Two groups emerge: one, led by Adolphe Thiers, was called the Party of Movement, and it favors ministerial responsibility, active foreign policy, and limited expansion of the political franchise. The second party is the Party of Resistance, led by Francois Guizot, who believes that France by this time was doing just fine and no further change was needed. After 1840, the Party of Resistance dominates the Chamber of Dputies, and Guizot works with the king to do things like suppress ministerial responsibility and pursues a policy that favors the more well-to-do middle class. Now, the liberals play a prime role in the Revolution of 1830 in France, but in other European countries, nationalism is the crucial force in 1830. In 1815, as part of the Congress of Vienna, Metternich had the Dutch Netherlands incorporate the Austrian Netherlands into its state. This merger of Catholic Belgium with the Protestant Netherlands is not something the Belgians are a big fan of, and in 1830 they rise up and succeed in having the Great Powers accept their independence, under the rule of a constitutional monarch named Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. While nationalist revolution is successful in Belgium, it's not so much in Italy. Metternich is good at sending Austrian troops there whenever they rise up. In Poland, a nationalist uprising occurs there in 1830, when revolutionaries try to overthrow Russian rule. But they fail to get support from France and Britain, which they hoped for, and by 1831 the Russians crushed the Poles and established a military dictatorship over the country. What's going on in Britain during this time? Well, new Parliamentary elections in 1830 bring the Whig Party into power after years of Tory rule. Now, we were talking about the Industrial Revolution and the good things as well as the bad things that came with it. Well, this can no longer be ignored, and things like Rotten Bouroughs being more represented than places like Manchester and Liverpool is becoming increasingly unacceptable amongst the larger segment of the British population. So by 1832, the Whigs introduce a Reform Act to provide for electoral reform. The rotten boroughs (56 of them) are disenfranchised. Instead 42 new towns and cities are. This gives these new industrial communities a voice in the government. A property qualification for voting was retained, however, 10 pounds sterling of annual rent (about 500 pounds or 750 dollars), and the numbers of voters increase from 478 thousand to 814 thousand, a figure that still means only one in every 30 people was represented in Parliament. So this reform largely benefits the upper middle class. The change does not, naturally, alter the character or composition of the members of the House of Commons, and one MP says that the Reform act seemed to create a Parliament 'much like the others.' The 1830s and 40s, however, see more reform in Britain. During this time, Parliament begins to correct some of the worst abuses of the Industrial Revolution by instituting government regulations to improve working conditions in the factories and mines. Industrialists and manufacturers in Parliament, of course, opposed this to a degree, and opposition, for example, to the Poor Law of 1834 is engineered to make being a pauper so bad that they HAVE to work. So as a result, while you see some reform, things like the workhouses are still around and the poor are forced into these. Now, this wasn't supposed to be permanent, as the theory went that these people working in these intentionally miserable workhouses would be encouraged to find better and more profitable employment (but, of course, there are drawbacks to this theory, as what kind of employment do these people find if they've only worked in workhouses?). Other pieces of legislation include the repeal of the Corn Laws. This is a big deal, and two manufacturers, Cobden and Bright, formed the anti-Corn Law league in 1838 to help workers by lowering bread prices. This was in line with classical liberal thinking, as to abolish these laws would encourage free trade. Repeal comes in 1846 under Robert Peel, leader of the Tories, who persuaded some of his associates to do so. Indeed, this move towards reform keeps Britain from going through a major revolution at the time. Not so in Europe by 1848, where liberalism and nationalism are openly challenging the conservative status quo to force changes in the way things are done. Revolutions take place in France, when a severe agricultural and industrial depression hits the country, and brings a whole lot of grief down on the poorer classes. One third of Parisian workers by 1847 are unemployed. The government is also suffering from scandals, corruption, and strife, and its refusal to extend suffrage to the larger population angers the lower middle and poorer classes. Louis-Philippe refuses to change things any further, and he comes into conflict with liberals, radical republicans, and socialists because of this. The Party of Movement, under Adolphe Thiers joins these forces in opposition to the king, and Thiers agitates for the dismissal of the king's chief minister Guizot, advocating so at political banquets, as political rallies at this time were not allowed in France. 70 such banquets are held in France in the couple of years leading up to 1848. When one is planned for Paris in February of that year, it's forbidden by the government, but people come anyway, and students and workers throw up barricades in Paris. Although the king now tries to propose reform, it's too little too late and he's unable to form a new government, abdicates, and flees to Britain. A provisional government is set up, run by radical republicans and even the socialist Louis Blanc. This government's first efforts are directed towards universal manhood suffrage. It establishes workshops along the lines of Louis Blanc's vision, but this is a bad time to do this as, not only does it not really cater to skilled workers (most of the jobs include sweeping and raking), it costs money and is a burden to the government. The workshop issue causes a growing split, therefore, between moderate and more radical republicans, whose main support comes from the Parisian working class. Meanwhile, with new elections, it becomes clear that the electorate aren't fans of the more radical measures. 500 seats in the new National Assembly go to moderate republicans, 300 to monarchists, and only 100 to the radicals. Unemployment is high, and those workshops that Blanc sponsored see enrollment go from 10,000 to almost 120,000 from March to June, emptying the treasury, and frightening moderates, who respond by closing the workshops on June 23. The workers, not recognizing that there's no more money to pay for this, pour into the streets in protest, rising up in revolt and fighting government forces. The 'Bloody June' revolt lasts 4 days and kills thousands of people, and 4,000 of the rioters are sent off to the French colony of Algeria to do hard labor. A new constitution is drawn up in November 1848, establishing the Second Republic of France. It has a one house legislature of 750 people elected via universal manhood suffrage, serving three year terms, while a president, also elected by universal male suffrage, for a four year term. In the first election, there are five candidates, four of them members of the groups who wrote up the constitution and who were responsible for the creation of the Second Republic. They are all defeated by the fifth candidate, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who is elected the first president of the Second Republic, but the Republic's days are already numbered, as by 1852, Napoleon gets imperial ambitions just like his uncle and manipulates the government into proclaiming him emperor of the Second French Empire by that year. X X X X X X X News of the 1848 revolution in Paris spreads to central Europe, and in the German states there are cries for the rulers there to introduce jury trials, a free press, constitutions, and other liberal reforms. In Prussia, concessions are made by Frederick William IV (1840-1861), who abolishes censorship, establishes a new constitution, and makes promises to work towards a united Germany. At the same time, things like universal manhood suffrage is introduced in the German States, and this is reflected in those representatives going to a meeting of the German Confederation in Frankfurt to form the Frankfurt assembly, with the aim of working towards German unity. Most of the delegates are well-educated middle class liberals and nationalists. However, the nationalist feeling at the assembly arouses controversy, as it claims to be the government of all Germany. Moreover, there is infighting between the delegates over what kind of German state to form. Do they form a Grossdeutsch state (Big German) where they include Austria, or do they form a Kleindeutsch state (Small German) where Austria is excluded and the new country would be ruled by the Prussian King? Austria agrees to leave the Confederation (it didn't really want to be in it anyway), and the supporters of the Small German state win out. However, when they offer Frederick William IV the title Emperor of Germany, he refuses, ordering the Prussian delegates home. The Frankfurt Assembly disbands, as though they agree with each other, they can't really tell the various rulers of the German states what to do or to accept their constitution for a new Germany. So the German liberals fail to unify Germany, although unification is not far off. Perhaps one of the reasons that Austria left the German Confederation was that it had problems of its own in 1848. When the Hungarians in the Austrian Empire under Louis Kossuth hear of the revolt in Paris, they're inspired and agitate for a 'commonwealth' status for Hungary, where they will keep the Habsburg monarch but want their own legislature to represent them. They follow up on this with demonstrations in Buda, Prague, and Vienna, and Metternich, after so many years of fighting for conservatism, is dismissed by the emperor and flees abroad. In Vienna, a well organized uprising by liberals takes control of the capital insisting on a constitution being drawn up and a constituent assembly being formed to perform just this task. Not only is Hungary making noise, but the Czechs in the north are as well. Emperor Ferdinand I (1835-1848), however, decides to play the long game to crush the liberals. While he offers concessions to quiet them down, he waits for them to start fighting amongst each other as they almost always inevitably do (they did this in the German States as well). Once the moderates and radicals start taking shots at one another, the conservatives chime in, driving a wedge between the moderates and radicals by saying to the moderates 'those radicals will screw you over, because they'll have no problem putting together a working class revolution to destroy us all.' And while the revolutionaries are fighting against each other, they're too preoccupied when Ferdinand and his conservative allies start smashing the revolutionaries, suppressing Czech rebels in Prague in June of 1848. In October, the death of the war minister at the hands of a Viennese mob gives conservatives and the emperor more fuel for the fire, and they use this death as an excuse to crush radicals there. In December, Ferdinand, now sick, agrees to abdicate in favor of his son Francis Joseph I (1848-1916), and the young Francis manages to restore the imperial government in Hungary. They're unable to defeat Hungarian military resistance under Kossuth, however, and need the help of the interventionist army of the Policeman of Europe, Nicholas I, who sends a 140,000 man army to crush the Hungarians, which it does by 1849. The Revolution in Austria fails.

*Industrial Revolution: Began in Britain after 1750. How? Can't have an industrial rev without an agricultural one, and were advances in mid-18th in agriculture that led to significant increase in food production. So Britain can produce more food for less labor and less money. Families now don't have to spend all money on food and use extra as potential to buy manufactured goods. At same time, with all this food, having pop growth, which presents would-be industrialists a pool of surplus labor who can be used to operate in newly emerging factories to produce manufactured goods. *Britain is a favorable place for this to happen: A lot of capital for investment, and central bank of England is willing to lend money for factories to be built. Willing to lend to people who started out as operators of a cottage industry but who want to move to bigger things. Many people are interested in making money, have more opportunities to do this in Constitutionalist England than Absolutist France or Austria (such activity is curtailed: mercantilism is the order of the day in these places, usually involves heavy gov interference). *Britain also has deal of mineral resources which can be used to power factories: coal, water power derived from rivers. Moreoever, both public and private interests interested in improving Britain's infrastructure in which beginning in 1750s/60s new roads, bridges, canals built - linking up major industrial centres of north and midlands (B-h, M-c, L-p) with London and Atlantic. *Unlike other Eu countries, no internal customs barriers to hinder domestic trade. *Role of gov is important! Real prosperity is achieved by gov staying out of things, and only laws should pass is ones which protect private property and allows private sector the freedom to operate. With this laissez-faire attitude in Br, many were able to prosper and few restrictions are placed on private businesses when compared with other countries. *Had supply of markets that B can use to ply their wares. British exports quadruple from 1660-1760. Colonial empire supplies such markets, and can sell to these markets regularly as it has a merchant marine navy that can transport goods to anywhere in world. *Goods it produces are ones that it can produce cheaply are goods in most demand. Sells not to the Continent, where protectionism and mercantilism prevent situation, but to the Americas, Africa, East where people want things like sturdy long-lasting clothes than expensive luxury items, and Britain's textile industry can supply this demand! Domestically, Br people are taking part in buying these goods too, and by 1720s Br has highest standard of living in Eu. As demand grows for these goods, entrepreneurs find ways to produce them more quickly and on a larger scale to meet this demand. *TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES that are paid for by initial profits. Leaps and bounds in the cotton/textile industry, with inventions like spinning jenny (Hargreaves), produce yarn more quickly; water frame spinning machine (Arkwright), which uses either horsepower or water power to produce even more yarn for textiles. Power loom (Cartwright) can not only spin yarn but weave at same time. Many industrialists to produce goods more efficiently, usually put these devices all in one spot, building usually situated next to river/stream (sources of power) and to put workers in these factories to operate them than leave them to work in their cottages. At same time, seeing emergence of steam engine in 1760s, James Watt. Steam engine development is important, used to power all these looms using coal (don't have to locate your factory next to river/stream if powered by steam). Allows B to import even more cotton and produce even more goods at cheaper price. This is good for B's poor, finding clothing, such as undergarments cheaper and easier to buy. Steam engine also is tireless, doesn't need a break, instrumental in helping to provide these goods. Also developing is the iron industry. B has a LOT of iron ore, but iron production in the early 18th is about same since Middle Ages. With advances in producing such iron such as the Coke process (using coal than charcoal to heat iron ore, faster and yields more iron) later puddling process makes iron purer, more malleable but also withstand more strain. Advances in iron production mean iron is more readily available and cheaper, which is good because need iron to construct all these new machines to make goods. But as well as producing machines for industrial production, plays major part in transportation *Do have more roads and canals which make easier to transport goods. But when tech of steam engine combined with iron production, have introduction of the railway. Now rails aren't new, mostly in wood form. With intro of cast-iron railways and steam engine, entrepreneurs like Trevithick are able to begin to produce railroads on which steam powered locomotives can run! Trevithick's locomotive was located in S Wales and pulls 10 tons of ore at 5 mi/hr. Stephenson's locomotive, 'Rocket' used as basis for modern railway system - used on the very first public railway line in 1830 and extends 32 miles from L-p to M-c, traveling 16 m/h. FIRST TIME this is happening, up to this point people in B were sedentary. Haven't left villages grown up in, let alone the region, and before this you often were born, lived, and died in one place. When you have Stephenson's locomotive emerging, realize much bigger place the world is and how there's more opportunity to venture about it, especially by 1850s when locomotives can go 50 m/h, B's railroad mileage tripled in 10 years from 2k miles of track to 6, crisscrosses much of country. With developments of railroad, B entering next stand of IR. Railroad demands coal and iron to operate, means those industries will grow to be accommodating. Railroad building demands huge capital, see creation of a whole group of middle class investors who invest money in growing joint-stock companies. New job opportunities are becoming available to people who can now find work more readily. More factories emerging, although need to organize one's factory workers to complete a set tasks, see emergence of a system of time-work discipline, accustoms employees to working a routine of regular hours. *While adults could work fine (understand ramifications of being fired), children (initially working at factories, get beaten). At time industrialization is going on, seeing it influence the beliefs of many churches, especially evangelical Protestant ones, which stress value of hard work, discipline, thrift. Hard work in this life will be rewarded by fruits of the next, avoid laziness (Protestant Work Ethic). This work ethic basically encourages people to be productive, and one of reasons that is given as to WHY B as well as having resources and tech are able to be so productive during 19th. *Feeling good about selves, first industrial fair advertising new tech, Great British Exhibition of 1851 presided over by Q Victoria and consort, Prince Albert, holding at place made up of glass/iron - Crystal Palace. Showing off exhibition that takes up 19 acres of land, with over 100k exhibits. 6M people visit over 6 mo., foreign visitors coming too. Seeing trees brought in, displaying man's mastery over nature via industrialization. Showing off new tech at this exhibition and showing off goods from Britain's Empire (goods from In, Ch, Am, etc.) Some critics see Great Exhibition as excessive, goods displayed from other areas of world as indicative of tens of thousands of people working to glorify a few despots.

So today we're going to talk about the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain some time after 1750. How did this happen? Well, you can't have an industrial revolution without an agricultural one, and there were advances in the mid-18th century in agriculture that leads to a significant increase in food production. So basically, Britain can produce more food for less labor and less money. British families now don't have to spend all of their money on food, and are using the extra they have left over as potential money that can be spent on manufactured goods. At the same time, with all this food, you're having population growth, which presents would-be industrialists a pool of surplus labor who can be used to operate the newly emerging factories to produce these manufactured goods. Britain is a favorable place for this to happen. It has a lot of capital for investment, and the central bank of England is willing to lend money in order for things like factories to be built. They're willing to lend to people who started out as operators of a cottage industry but who want to move on to bigger things. Many people in Britain are interested in making money, and to be honest, they have more opportunities to do this in Constitutionalist England than in Absolutist France or Austria, where such activity is curtailed (remember, mercantilism is the order of the day in these places still, and that usually involves heavy government interference). Britain also has a great deal of mineral resources which can be used to power these factories, such as coal, as well as water power derived from its rivers. Moreover, both private and public interests are interested in improving Britain's infrastructure in which (beginning in the 1750s and 60s) new roads, bridges and canals are built, linking up the major industrial centres of the north and the midlands (Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool) with London as well as the Atlantic. Unlike other European countries, Britain at this time didn't have any internal customs barriers to hinder domestic trade. So today we're going to talk about the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain some time after 1750. How did this happen? Well, you can't have an industrial revolution without an agricultural one, and there were advances in the mid-18th century in agriculture that leads to a significant increase in food production. So basically, Britain can produce more food for less labor and less money. British families now don't have to spend all of their money on food, and are using the extra they have left over as potential money that can be spent on manufactured goods. At the same time, with all this food, you're having population growth, which presents would-be industrialists a pool of surplus labor who can be used to operate the newly emerging factories to produce these manufactured goods. Britain is a favorable place for this to happen. It has a lot of capital for investment, and the central bank of England is willing to lend money in order for things like factories to be built. They're willing to lend to people who started out as operators of a cottage industry but who want to move on to bigger things. Many people in Britain are interested in making money, and to be honest, they have more opportunities to do this in Constitutionalist England than in Absolutist France or Austria, where such activity is curtailed (remember, mercantilism is the order of the day in these places still, and that usually involves heavy government interference). Britain also has a great deal of mineral resources which can be used to power these factories, such as coal, as well as water power derived from its rivers. Moreover, both private and public interests are interested in improving Britain's infrastructure in which (beginning in the 1750s and 60s) new roads, bridges and canals are built, linking up the major industrial centres of the north and the midlands (Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool) with London as well as the Atlantic. Unlike other European countries, Britain at this time didn't have any internal customs barriers to hinder domestic trade. Now, the role of government in this is also important. You hear the best ways to create jobs these days, and some say that the government can help. Well, those people need to take a look at Britain and see that real prosperity is achieved by the government pretty much staying out of things, and the only laws they should pass is ones which protect private property and allows the private sector the freedom to operate. With this lasseiz-faire attitude that Britain had, many were able to prosper, and few restrictions are placed on private businesses when compared with other countries. Moreover, you have a supply of markets that Britain can use to ply their wares. British exports quadruple between 1660 and 1760. The colonial empire it has supplies such markets, and Britain can sell to these markets regularly as it has a merchant marine navy that can transport goods to anywhere in the world. Moreover, the goods it produces are ones that it can produce cheaply the goods that are in the most demand. It sells not to the Continent, where protectionism and mercantilism prevent such a situation, but rather to the Americas, Africa, and the East, where people want things like sturdy, long-lasting clothes rather than expensive luxury items, and Britain's textile industry can supply this demand. Domestically, British people are also taking part in buying these goods, and by the 1720s Britain has the highest standard of living in Europe, so much so that Daniel Dafoe once wrote that even those the British call poor know no want. As demand grows for these goods, entrepreneurs find ways to produce them more quickly and on a larger scale to meet this demand. So you have technological advances that are paid for by initial profits. So there are leaps and bounds made in the cotton/textile industry, with inventions like Hargreaves's spinning jenny, which can produce yarn more quickly, or Arkwright's water frame spinning machine, which uses either horsepower or water power to produce even more yarn for textiles. Cartwright's power loom can not only spin yarn, but also weave at the same time. Many industrialists, in order to produce goods more efficiently, usually put these devices all in one spot, in a building usually situated next to a river or stream (the sources of power for these machines) and to put the workers in these factories to operate these machines rather than leave them to work in their cottages as before (hence, cottage industry). At the same time, you're seeing the emergence of the steam engine in the 1760s, as created by James Watt. The steam engine development is important, as it can be used to power all of these looms using coal (this is an important development, as it means that you don't necessarily have to locate your factory next to a river or stream if you're powered by steam). This allows Britain to import even more cotton and produce even more goods at a cheaper price. This is good for Britain's poor, who are finding clothing, such as undergarments (previously a reserve of the rich) cheaper and easier to buy. The steam engine is so important because it is tireless, it doesn't need a break like a horse, and it is instrumental in helping to provide these goods. Also developing is the iron industry. Britain has a LOT of iron ore, but iron production in the early 18th century is about the same it's been since the Middle Ages. With advances in producing iron such as the Coke process (that is, using coal rather than charcoal to heat iron ore, which is faster and yields higher amounts of iron) and later the puddling process makes iron purer, more malleable but also able to withstand more strain. Advances in iron production mean that iron is more readily available and cheaper, which is good because you're going to need iron to construct all these new machines to make these goods. But as well as producing machines for industrial production, the iron industry plays a major part in new means of transportation. Up to this point, you do have more roads and canals which make it easier to transport goods. However, when the technology of the steam engine is combined with that of iron production, you have the introduction of the railway. Now, rails aren't new (you see them in German mining operations as early as 1500), mostly in wood form. With the introduction of cast iron railways and the steam engine, however, entrepreneurs such as Trevithick are able to begin to produce railroads, on which steam powered locomotives can run. Trevithick's locomotive was located in southern Wales, and pulls 10 tons of ore at 5 miles an hour. This isn't much, but it's the first try, and better, faster locomotives come along later. Indeed, Stephenson's locomotive, the 'Rocket,' is used as the basis for the modern railway system, and the 'Rocket' is used on the very first public railway line in 1830 and extends 32 miles from Liverpool to Manchester, traveling at 16 miles per hour. Now, I know that many of you are going 'great, wow, Vin Diesel would be crapping his pants at such speed, I just know it.' But remember, this is the first time this is happening. Up to this point, people in Britain have been fairly sedentary. They haven't left the villages they've grown up in, let alone the region, and before this chances are they were born in one place, lived in one place, and died in one place. So when you have Stephenson's locomotive emerging, all of a sudden you realize what a much bigger place the world is, and how there's much more opportunity to venture out into it, especially by the 1850s when locomotives can go 50 miles an hour and Britain's railroad mileage has tripled in 10 years from 2,000 miles of track to 6,000, and this crisscrosses much of the country. With the development of the railroad, Britain is entering the next stage of the industrial revolution. The railroad demands coal and iron to operate, which means that those industries will grow in order to be accommodating. Railroad building demands huge capital, so as a result you see the creation of a whole group of middle class investors who invest money in growing joint-stock companies. New job opportunities are becoming available to people who can now find work more readily. More factories are emerging, although with the need to organize one's factory workers in order to complete a set task, you see the emergence of a system of time-work discipline, that accustoms employees to working a routine of regular hours. Now, while adults could work fine in such a situation (they would understand the ramifications of getting fired, after all), but children (yes, they're initially working at the factories, well they might not understand getting fired, so they might get beaten instead). At the time industrialization is going on, you're seeing it influence the beliefs of many of the churches, especially the evangelical Protestant ones, which stress the value of hard work, discipline, and thrift. The hard work in this life will be rewarded by the fruits of the next, avoid laziness, etc. (your Protestant Work Ethic, so to speak). But this work ethic basically encourages people to be productive, and this is one of the reasons that is given as to WHY Britain, as well as having the resources and technology, are able to be so productive during the 19th century. And they're feeling good about themselves, so much so that, with the first industrial fair advertising this new technology, the Great British Exhibition of 1851 presided over by Queen Victoria and her consort, Prince Albert, they're holding it at a palace made entirely of glass and iron (the Crystal Palace). They're showing off an exhibition that takes up 19 acres of land, with over 100,000 exhibits. Six million people visit the exhibition over a period of six months, foreign visitors are coming in as well. And when they come to the exhibition, they're seeing that trees have been brought in to the palace, displaying man's mastery over nature via industrialization. Not only are they showing off new technology at this exhibition, they're also showing off good from Britain's Empire (goods from India, China, the Americas, etc.). Some critics, however, see the Great Exhibition as excessive and ridiculous, and the goods displayed from other areas of the world such as India, one critic wrote, is indicative of tens of thousands of people essentially working to glorify a few despots. More on that later.

*Consevatism is getting challenged by other ideologies, namely liberalism, nationalism, and socialism. Liberalism has background in the Enlightenment and the American and French Revs. When the Industrial Rev. emerges, many of new middle class that are created as a result are adopting this ideology. *This classical liberalism which is big on free markets, natural rights, laissez-faire. Believe people should be as free from restraint as possible. *Economically, liberalism referred to as classical economics. Primary tenet of economic liberalism is laissez-faire, belief that the state shouldn't interrupt free play of natural economic forces, especially supply + demand. Gov shouldn't restrain the economic liberty of the individual, but rather be restricted to three primary functions 1) Defense of the country 2) Police protection of individuals 3) Construction and maintenance of public works too expensive for individuals. If individuals allowed economic liberty, ultimately can bring about the maximum good for the maximum number and society would benefit overall. Gov interference argued against by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) in Essay on the Principles of Population. Argued a population, if unchecked, increased at a geomteric rate while the food supply increases at a much slower economic rate. The result will be severe overpopulation and starvation for human race if this growth isn't held in check. If misery and poverty happen, inevitably the results of nature and this should not be interfered with. A bit gloomy, bur overpopulation and food might not happen any time soon, thanks to Norman Borlaug (1914-2009), genetically modified high yielding, disease free grains and allowed to exponentially expand world food production so more people would have access to food (if we only ate organic food, Malthus would be right and people would be starving all over the place). Another economist, David Ricardo (1772-1823) developed these ideas in Principles of Policital Economy in 1817, discussing his 'iron law of wages' and argued an increase in population means more workers; more workers cause wages to fall below subsistence level, result is misery and starvation, which reduces the population. If the number of workers declines, wages rise above the subsistence level again which in turn encourages workers to have large families as the cycle is repeated. Raising wages arbitrarily to control this would be pointless as it would perpetuate the cycle! In 1817, while Ricardo doesn't allow for things like Banks, expansion of the money supply, and inflation vs. deflation, so he tends to be fatalistic like Malthus. Stick to Adam Smith! Politically, classical liberals held common set of beliefs: 1. All civil liberties or basic rights must be protected (equality before law; freedom of assembly; speech and press; freedom from arbitrary arrest). All these freedoms should be guaranteed in written document. 2. While there should be religious toleration for all, for most part should be a separation of church and state. 3. Support right to peacefully oppose govs via parliament and making of laws by representative assembly elected by qualified voters. If a classical liberal believes in monarchy, it's a consitutional monarchy and prevent despotism. 4. Advocate ministerial responsibility: allow legislature to check power of the executive because king's ministers would have to answer to the legislature. 5. For the first half of the 19th, limited suffrage (people entitled to equal civil rights, shouldn't have equal political rights), and right to vote/hold office largely tied to property qualification. While middle class liberals want voting rights extended to them, don't necessarily want to let lower classes share power, not really universal democracy advocates AT FIRST. One of the most important advocates of liberalism was John Stuart Mill (1806-73), English philosopher who wrote On Liberty in 1859. *Argued for absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, needed to be protected from any form of gov censorship or the tyranny of the majority. *Big supporter of women's rights, when attempted to lobby to include women in the English Voting Reform Bill of 1867 and thwarted, wrote an essay On the Subjection of Women, written with his wife (Harriet Taylor). *Argued the legal subordination of women to men was wrong, and differences between men and women not due to different natures but because of social practices and constructs (leaving out biological, hormonal, emotional, reasoning differences between both sexes). *Argued with equal education, women could achieve just as much as men could. As well as political liberalism, Conservatives of early 19th had to contend with Nationalism. *Arises out of an awareness of being part of a community that has common institutions, tradition, religion, customs. Constitutes a 'nation' rather than a dynasty, city-state, etc. and it becomes main focus of an individual's primary political loyalty. *Sprung out of FR, and many nationalists came to believe each nationality should have own government. Subject peoples like Hungarians of the Austrian Empire wanted national self-determination or right to establish in the very least autonomy within this polyglot empire. *Imagine how nationalism could upset existing order (Metternich). If had a united Italy or Germany, would upset arrangements of 1815, and an independent Hungary would mean end of Austrian Empire. Becuase many states are multi-national, conservatives go after nationalists with vengeance. *At same time, liberals and nationalists become allies, because liberals believe liberty could be realized only by peoples who ruled themselves. Many nationalists believed once each people had own state, all nations could be linked together into a broader community. And then you have Socialism Rose out of a direct response to the negative aspects of the IR (urban poor, bad working conditions, child labor). As we know it today is tied up with Marxist thought and Marxist analysis of human society. Initially though sprang from political theory and intellectuals who believed they could introduce an equality into social conditions and believed human cooperation was superior to competition that dominated early industrial capitalism. *Marxists, who highjacked the movement, thought was impractical and called these people Utopian Socialists. *Utopian Socialists were against private property and competition of capitalism. Believed by eliminating these things and creating new systems of social organizations via social engineering they believed could create a better world, and had a variety of ways of accomplishing this task. One group of socialists, led by Charles Fourier (1172-1838) proposed creating small communities called phalansteries, which were self-contained cooperatives each consisting ideally of 1,620 people. Inhabitants would live and work in these communities to common benefit. Work tasks rotated to avoid making inhabitants sick of doing same old thing. However, couldn't get funding for it when people proposed it to pointed out his weaknesses. *Robert Owen (1771-1858), British cotton grower, believed humans were generally good and could reveal goodness if they lived in cooperative environment. Does this by turning town of New Lanark, Scotland into flourishing, cooperative community. When he tried to do same thing in Indiana in US in 1820s, bickering within community destroyed his dream. Another of his disciples tried same thing with freed slave community in TN, also failed. *Communes sound like nice idea, but don't work! No real reward system for people who work harder than others, those who shirk have most to benefit from this system because they get same living standards as everyone else. Mediocrity is rewarded, while harder workers get short end of stick. Why you have bickering in communities and don't work. *Other socalists offer other ideas for better society: Louis Blanc (1813-1882) wrote in his Organization of Work that social problems could be solved by government assistance. Denounced competition as main cause of economic evils, and called for creation of workshops, that manufactured goods for public sale. The state would finance these workshops but workers owned and operated them. Problem: Whenever government gets involved in economy, not them funding things but taxpayers! These are the three ideologies rising in opposition to conservatism, and conservative dominance is being challenged around the year 1830.

So we talked about conservatism from 1815 to 1830, but this political philosophy is getting challenged by other ideologies, namely liberalism, nationalism and socialism. Now, Liberalism, as I have said, has its background in the Enlightenment as well as the American and French Revolutions. When the Industrial Revolution emerges, many of the new middle class that are created as a result are adopting this ideology. Now, this is classical liberalism which is big on free markets, natural rights, and lasseiz-faire (as opposed to modern liberals, who are into big government, and it seems these days the only thing they're liberal about really is sex). In any case, classical liberals believe that people should be as free from restraint as possible. Economically, liberalism was referred to as classical economics. The primary tenet of economic liberalism is lasseiz-faire, the belief that the state should not interrupt the free play of natural economic forces, especially supply and demand. Government should not restrain the economic liberty of the individual, but rather should be restricted to three primary functions: 1) Defense of the country; 2) Police protection of individuals and 3) construction and maintenance of public works that were too expensive for individuals to undertake. If individuals were allowed economic liberty, ultimately they can bring about the maximum good for the maximum number and society would benefit overall. Government interference is argued against by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) in his work Essay on the Principles of Population. He argued that a population, if unchecked, increased at a geometric rate while the food supply increases at a much slower economic rate. The result will be severe overpopulation and ultimately starvation for the human race if this growth is not held in check. Indeed, nature holds this in check via 'Unwholesome occupations, severe labor, exposure to the seasons, extreme poverty, bad nursing of children, large cities, excesses, disease, epidemics, wars, plague, famine.' If misery and poverty happen, it's inevitably the result of nature and this should not be interfered with. Now, Malthus is a bit gloomy, but don't worry, overpopulation and food might not happen any time soon, thanks to Norman Borlaug (1914-2009), the guy who genetically modified high yielding, disease free grains (partly to avoid deforestation of lands for farming) and thus allowed us to exponentially expand world food production so that more people (especially in the third world) would have access to food (see, if we ate only organic food, Malthus would be right and you would have people starving all over the place). Another economist, David Ricardo (1772-1823), further developed these ideas in Principles of Political Economy in 1817, discussing his 'iron law of wages,' and argued that an increase in population means more workers; more workers in turn cause wages to fall below subsistence level, and the result is misery and starvation, which then reduces the population. If the number of workers declines, then wages rise above the subsistence level again, which in turn encourages workers to have larger families as the cycle is repeated. Raising wages arbitrarily to control this would be pointless as it only would perpetuate the cycle. Now, while interesting, we have to remember that this was 1817, and Ricardo doesn't really allow for things like Banks, expansion of the money supply, and inflation vs. deflation, so he tends to be a bit fatalistic like Malthus. My advice? Stick to Adam Smith. Politically, classical liberals held a common set of beliefs. First of all, all civil liberties or basic rights must be protected (equality before the law; freedom of assembly, speech and the press; freedom from arbitrary arrest. All of these freedoms should be guaranteed in a written document. While there should be religious toleration for all, for the most part there should be a separation of church and state. They support the right to peacefully oppose governments via parliament and the making of laws by a representative assembly elected by qualified voters. If a classical liberal believes in monarchy, it's a constitutional monarchy that prevents despotism. Many liberals advocated ministerial responsibility, which would allow the legislature to check the power of the executive because the king's ministers would have to answer to the legislature. For the first half of the 19th century, classical liberals believed in limited suffrage (although all people are entitled to equal civil rights, they should not have equal political rights), and the right to vote and hold office was largely tied to property qualification. Now, while the middle class liberals want such voting rights extended to them, they don't necessarily want to let the lower classes share that power, and at first, classical liberals are not really advocates of universal democracy. One of the most important advocates of liberalism was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an English philosopher who wrote On Liberty in 1859. Mill argued for an 'absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,' which needed to be protected from any form of government censorship or the tyranny of the majority. Mill also is a big supporter of women's rights, and when he attempted to lobby to include women in the English Voting Reform Bill of 1867 and was thwarted, he wrote an essay called On the Subjection of Women, written with his wife Harriet Taylor. He argued that the legal subordination of women to men was wrong, and that differences between men and women were not due to different natures but rather because of social practices and constructs (which, to be honest, while that looks good on paper...WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT! That's not to say that because they have different natures that one should be able to subjugate the other, but Mill kind of leaves out the whole biological/hormonal/emotional/reasoning differences that both sexes have, but remember, it's only 1867 when he wrote this). Mill argued that with equal education, women could achieve just as much as men could (no argument there). As well as political liberalism, Conservatives of the early 19th century had to contend with Nationalism. Nationalism arises out of an awareness of being part of a community that has common institutions, tradition, religion, language, and customs. This constitutes a 'nation,' rather than a dynasty, city-state, etc., and it becomes the main focus of an individual's primary political loyalty. Nationalism, of course, sprung out of the French Revolution, and many nationalists came to believe that each nationality should have its own government. Subject peoples, such as the Hungarians of the Austrian Empire, wanted national self-determination, or the right to establish in the very least autonomy within this polyglot empire. Of course, you can imagine how nationalism could upset the existing order (Just ask Metternich). If you had a united Italy or Germany, that would upset the arrangements of 1815, and an independent Hungary would effectively mean the end of the Austrian Empire. Because many states are multi-national, conservatives go after nationalists with a vengeance. At the same time, liberals and nationalists become allies, because liberals believed that liberty could be realized only by peoples who ruled themselves. Many nationalists believed that once each people had their own state, all nations could be linked together into a broader community. And then we have Socialism....ugh. I'm not a Socialist, but I will try to be as neutral as possible. With Socialism, you have to understand that it rose out of pretty much a direct response to the negative aspects of the Industrial Revolution (urban poor, bad working conditions, child labor, etc.). Now, Socialism as we know it today has been pretty much tied up with Marxist thought and a Marxist analysis of human society. But it wasn't always like that. Early socialists basically sprang from political theory and intellectuals who believed that they could introduce an equality into social conditions and believed that human cooperation was superior to competition that dominated early industrial capitalism. Marxists, who highjacked the movement the way they highjack everything else they come across, thought this was impractical and called these people Utopian Socialists. However, to be fair, if these people think they can achieve Utopia in this world...well, they're kind of mistaken. Utopian Socialists were against private property and the competition of capitalism. They believed by eliminating these things and creating new systems of social organization (via things like social engineering, of course), they believed they could create a better world, and had a variety of ways to accomplish this task. One group of Socialists, led by Charles Fourier (1772-1838) proposed creating small communities called phalansteries, which were self-contained cooperatives, each consisting ideally of 1,620 people. The inhabitants would live and work in these communities to the common benefit. Work tasks would be rotated to avoid making these inhabitants sick of the same old thing. However, Fourier couldn't get any funding for it when the people he proposed it to pointed out the weaknesses of this. Robert Owen (1771-1858), a British cotton grower, believed that humans were generally good and could reveal their goodness if they lived in a cooperative environment. He does this by turning the town of New Lanark, Scotland into a flourishing, cooperative community. But when he tried the same thing in Indiana in the U.S. in the 1820s, bickering within the community eventually destroyed his dream. Another of his disciples tried the same thing with a freed slave community in Tennessee, but this also failed. But here's the thing: communes sound like a nice idea, but for the most part, they don't work. There's no real reward system for people who work harder than others, and those who shirk have the most to benefit from this system because, again, they get the same living standards as everyone else. Mediocrity is therefore rewarded, while the harder workers get the short end of the stick. THIS is why you have bickering in these communities and they don't work. Same thing goes for the communes set up by the hippies in the 60s. People live there for a few years, but then they realize that this perfect existence is kind of artificial, and once again those who don't pull their weight creates resentment, etc. etc. Other socialists offer other ideas for a better society. Louis Blanc (1813-1882) wrote in his Organization of Work that social problems could be solved by government assistance. He denounced competition as the main cause of economic evils, and called for the creation of workshops that would manufacture goods for public sale. The state would finance these workshops, but the workers would own and operate them. There's a problem with this, because whenever the government gets involved in the economy, it's not them funding these things, but rather taxpayers who do so.

*So, what happens after Napoleon is exiled? Immediate response is for European powers to roll back everything to before 1789. Want to make sure old order is restored, no other French Revolution that will allow another Napoleon. *His four major enemies (Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria) all agree not only to stay united while fighting Napoleon, but agree to work together to pick up the pieces after his defeat. *Resolving to restore King Louis XVIII to throne, agree to put together a peace settlement, meeting at Congress of Vienna in Sept. 1814 *Leader of the Congress of Vienna was Austria's foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859), an arrogant, self-assured diplomat who thought he was always above and beyond the preoccupation of most public men. *Claims his motives are guided by principle of legitimacy. To bring peace and stability to Europe after N, Metternich thought it necessary to restore the legitimate monarchs who would preserve traditional institutions. Not only in France, Spain (king had been overthrown briefly by N's brother) and the Italian States which had been creation of republics under N, but now again ruled by monarchs. *This principle of legitimacy doesn't mean everything got rolled back to pre-Revolution: more practical considerations when it comes to things like 'who ends up with what lands at the end of the day.' *Congress when dealing with the issue of Poland for example: Prussia and Austria were allowed to keep some Polish territory and a new nominally independent Polish kingdom is created, although Romanov dynasty are their hereditary monarchs, and their foreign policy is that of Russia's and largely remains under Russian control. *To compensate Prussia and Austria for losses, Prussia given lands in Saxony and the Napoleonic kingdom of Westphalia, left bank of the Rhine. *Austria loses Austrian Netherlands to the Dutch Netherlands, and given control instead of two northern Italian provinces, Lombardy and Venetia. *In making these new territorial arrangements, representatives of Congress believed they are forming a new balance of power that would prevent any one country from dominating Europe. To balance gains made by Russia in Poland for example, Prussia and Austria are strengthened mainly to serve as barrier in Central Europe to keep another N from expanding should one rise. *France despite being defeated also figures into balance of power in that it's not terribly weakened, still a great power, but major barriers set up to make sure it never rises to Napoleonic levels again... 1) Larger kingdom of the Netherlands (under rule of House of Orange, including former Austrian Netherlands) in the NE 2) Kingdom of Sardinia (out of Piedmont) blocks France's way to the S. 3) Prussia being enlarged, many hope It can stop any French ambition. 4) Remnant of German states incorporated into the German Confederation, set to replace N's confederation of the Rhine. Not only are France's borders pushed back to 1790, but geographical changes are made to keep her from rising again, have to pay an indemnity to other powers and allow an army of occupation in France for five years. *The order established at the conference allows for Europe to avoid a full scale conflict for a century! *These arrangements mark appearance in Eu politics of an ideology of conservatism. Conservatives of the day wanted to contain not only revolutionary sentiments but also more acceptable classically liberal sentiments. Actual philosophy dates back to Edmund Burke (1729-97), who wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790, discussing radical republican tenets and democratic ideals of the Revolution. *Burke maintained society was a contract but the state should not be considered nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee (temporary interest dissolved by fancy of parties). Essentially state was a partnership but one not only between those who are living, but between those living, dead, and to be born. *Burke stated Revolution erred in that no one generation has the right to destroy this partnership, each generation has the duty to preserve and transmit it to the next. Advised against violent overthrow of government via revolution. Rather if change does come, a gradual change than a quick and sudden change! *This is conservatism in a classical liberal setting. Doesn't reject change, but only specifies that change should be gradual as not to upset the system. Another thinker Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) presented more counterrevolutionary and authoritarian conservatism. Espoused restoration of a hereditary monarchy , divinely sanctioned institution. *Only absolute monarchy can guarantee order in society and avoid chaos created by things like FR. So bit more full-on than B. But most conservatives hold to a general body of beliefs... 1) Favor obedience to political authority 2) Believe organized religion is crucial to the social order 3) Hated revolutionary upheavals 4) Are unwilling to accept either liberal demands for civil liberties and representative govs or the nationalism generated by the Rev 5) Community took precedence over individual rights *Society should be organized and orederly, tradition is the best guide for this! Conservatives dominate the political scene after 1815. *To maintain this new order, powers organized the Concert of Europe. *Major powers of this Concert: Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia met regularly between 1818-22 to discuss common interests and committeed to stopping someone like N from rising again in the future. *First couple congresses were pleasant, the 1820 congress is much more tense mainly because there is a) revolt in Spain against the restored Bourbon King Ferdinand VII, b) while in Italy restoration of another Bourbon causes another revolt in Naples, Sicily. This revolt spreads to Piedmont in Northern Italy. *Metternich weary of this (b) because it threatens Austrian domination in Italy. At the 1820 conference, he establishes the Principle of Intervention - states which have undergone a revolutionary governmental change can be threats to other states. Therefore, these revolutionary states should no longer be considered members of the European Alliance and they should remain excluded from alliance until situation stabilizes and order is restored. *However, if these revolutionary states create a dangerous situation in which other states are threatened, then members of the alliance - via peaceful or military means - should force the revolutionary state back to a more conservative stance to bring them back into alliance. *Principle means great powers of Eu have right to send armies to other countries where revolutions are happening to put those revolutions down and restore legitimate monarchs to thrones. *Britain has major problem, it protests that it did not sign on to interfere in internal affairs of states. So it refuses to recognize the principle. *However, A, P, and R more willing to do so and at the Congress of Laibachin (1821) authorize sending of Austrian troops into Naples to restore order. Austrians then crush rebellion in Piedmont. At the fourth congress, held in Verona in 1822, same 3 powers decide to crush the revolution in Spain and preserve Ferdinand VII's throne. Done using French forces, who go into country and effectively restore Bourbon monarch. *While this policy seems to work initially, important to note the Concert of Europe has broken down as a result of British unwillingness to determine the destiny of other Eu countries. While the British were unable to thwart the Principle of Intervention when it came to Spain and Italy, managed to do so when it came to the Continental powers attempting to interfere in Latin America, where Revolutions had been brewing since 1807.

So what happens after Napoleon is exiled? Well, the immediate response to his defeat is basically to for the European powers to roll back everything to the way it was before 1789. They want to make sure that the old order is restored, and that there isn't another French Revolution that will allow for another Napoleon any time soon. Indeed, Napoleon's four major enemies (Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia) all agree not only to stay united while fighting Napoleon, but all also agree to work together to pick up the pieces after his defeat. As well as resolving to restore Louis XVIII to his throne, they also agree to put together a peace settlement, meeting at what's called the Congress of Vienna in September 1814. The leader of the Congress of Vienna was Austria's foreign minister, Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859), an arrogant, self-assured diplomat who thought himself 'always above and beyond the preoccupation of most public men. I cover a ground much vaster than they can see. I cannot keep myself from saying about 20 times a day "How right I am, and how wrong they are."' At the Congress, Metternich claims that his motives are guided by the principle of legitimacy. In order to bring peace and stability to Europe after Napoleon, Metternich thought it necessary to restore the legitimate monarchs who would preserve traditional institutions. This had already been done not only in France, but also Spain (where the king had been overthrown briefly by Napoleon's brother) as well as the Italian states which had seen the creation of republics under Napoleon but now once again became ruled by monarchs. However, the principle of legitimacy doesn't mean EVERYTHING gets rolled back to before the Revolution. For example there are more practical considerations when it comes to things like 'who ends up with what lands at the end of the day.' The Congress, when dealing with the issue of Poland, shows this. Prussia and Austria, for example, were allowed to keep some Polish territory, and a new nominally independent Polish kingdom is created, although the Romanov dynasty are their hereditary monarchs, and their foreign policy is that of Russia's and largely remains under Russian control. In order to compensate Prussia and Austria for their losses, Prussia is given lands in Saxony as well as the Napoleonic kingdom of Westphalia, as well as the left bank of the Rhine. Austria loses the Austrian Netherlands to the Dutch Netherlands, and is given control instead of two northern Italian provinces, Lombardy and Venetia. In making these new territorial arrangements, the representatives at the Congress believe that they are forming a new balance of power that would prevent any one country from dominating Europe. For example, to balance gains made by Russia in Poland, Prussia and Austria are strengthened, mainly, Metternich said, to serve a barrier in Central Europe to keep another Napoleon from expanding should one rise. France, despite being defeated, also figures into the balance of power in that it's not terribly weakened, it's still a great power, but major barriers are set up to make sure it never rises to Napoleonic levels again. A larger kingdom of the Netherlands (under the rule of the House of Orange and including the former Austrian Netherlands) is set up in the northeast, while a new Kingdom of Sardinia (created out of Piedmont) blocks France's way to the south. Moreover, many hope that with Prussia being enlarged, it can stop any French ambition. The remnant of the German states is incorporated into the German Confederation, which was set up to replace Napoleon's confederation of the Rhine. So in effect, not only are France's borders pushed back to 1790, but geographical changes are made to kee her from rising again, and they have to pay an indemnity to the other powers as well as allow an army of occupation in France for 5 years. The order established at the conference basically allows for Europe to avoid a full scale conflict for nearly a century. These arrangements mark the appearance in European politics of an ideology of conservatism. Bascially the conservatives of the day wanted to contain not only revolutionary sentiments but also the more acceptable classically liberal sentiments. The actual philosophy dates back to Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790, discussing the radical republican tenets as well as the democratic ideals of the Revolution. Burke maintained that society, yes, was a contract, but that 'the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, to be taken up for a temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties.' The state was a partnership but one 'not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.' In other words, Burke stated that the Revolution erred in that no one generation has the right to destroy this partnership, and that each generation has the duty to preserve and transmit it to the next. He advised against the violent overthrow of the government via revolution. Rather, if change did come, then it should be a gradual change rather than a sudden and quick change. Now, this is basically conservatism in a classical liberal setting. It does not reject change, but only specifies that change should be gradual as not to upset the system. Another thinker, Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), presented a more counterrevolutionary and authoritarian conservatism. He espoused the restoration of a hereditary monarchy, which is a divinely sanctioned institution. Only absolute monarchy can guarantee order in society and avoid the chaos created by things like the French Revolution. So he's a bit more full-on than Burke. But most conservatives hold to a general body of beliefs. They 1) favored obedience to political authority; 2) believed organized religion is crucial to the social order; 3) hated revolutionary upheavals; 4) Are unwilling to accept either the liberal demands for civil liberties and representative governments or the nationalism generated by the Revolution; 5) The community took precedence over individual rights, society much be organized and orderly, and tradition is the best guide for this. Conservatives tended to dominate the political scene after 1815. In order to maintain this new order, the powers organized the Concert of Europe. Indeed, the major powers of this Concert, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, met regularly between 1818 and 1822 to discuss their common interests and remain committed to stopping someone like Napoleon from rising again in the future. While the first couple of congresses at which the Concert met were quite pleasant, the 1820 congress is much more tense, mainly because by this time there is a revolt in Spain against the restored Bourbon King Ferdinand VII, while in Italy the restoration of another Bourbon causes another revolt in Naples and Sicily, and this revolt spreads to Piedmont in Northern Italy. Metternich is especially wary of this, because it threatens Austrian domination in Italy, and at the 1820 conference, he establishes the Principle of Intervention. This Principle, Metternich argued, was that states which have undergone a revolutionary governmental change can be threats to other states. Therefore, these revolutionary states should no longer be considered members of the European Alliance, and that they should remain excluded from the alliance until the situation of those states stabilizes and order is restored. However, if these revolutionary states creates a dangerous situation in which other states are threatened, then members of the alliance, via peaceful or military means, should force the revolutionary state back to a more conservative stance in order to bring them back into the alliance. This principle means that the great powers of Europe have the right to send armies to other countries where revolutions were happening in order to put those revolutions down and restore legitimate monarchs to their thrones. Britain has a major problem with this, as it protests that it did not sign on to interfere in the internal affairs of states (except France and that was under extraordinary circumstances). So it refuses to recognize this principle. However, Austria, Prussia and Russia are more than willing to do so, and at the congress of Laibachin 1821, they authorize the sending of Austrian troops into Naples to restore order. This is swiftly done, with Ferdinand I being restored to the throne. The Austrians then crush the rebellion in Piedmont. At the fourth congress, held this time in Verona in 1822, the same 3 powers decide to crush the revolution in Spain and preserve Ferdinand VII's throne. This is done using French forces, who go into the country and effectively restore the Bourbon monarch. While this policy seems to work initially, it is important to note that the Concert of Europe has broken down, mainly as a result of British unwillingness to determine the destiny of other European countries. While the British were unable to thwart the Principle of Intervention when it came to Spain and Italy, they managed to do so when it came to the Continental powers attempting to interfere in Latin America, where Revolutions have been brewing since about 1807.

*What's going on in Austria, Russia, and England during the 1860s. Start with Austria... Despite putting down the liberal/nationalist revolutions (with Russian help) then not returning favor to Russia during Crimean War, Austria had stabilized the situation in her own country but pretty much without allies (much to her chagrin when something like the Austro-Prussian war happens). *Au also had problems with new changes that come with industrialization after 1850, although a unified system of laws, administration, and taxation were forged. *However, A defeats in the Italian War of 1859 and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 brings changes. With defeats at hands of Pr, Au realize that to keep their empire together, need to make nice with the Hungarians who have felt like second-class citizens for long time. *Emperor Francis Joseph negotiates with the nationalistic Hungarians to forge the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867 which creates a DUAL MONARCHY of Austria-Hungary. Basically giving autonomous rule to Hungary. Emperor is both monarch of Au and Hu, but each part of this dual monarchy has its own constitution, its own legislature, its own bureaucracy, and its own capital (Vienna - A, Budapest - H). The Austro-Hungarian monarch holds this empire together, and is in command of common army, a common foreign policy, and a common system of finances. So Hu becomes an independent nation within this empire. *However autonomy doesn't extend to other nationalities in empire (Serbs, Poles, Slovenes, Czechs, Croats, Slovaks), and these nationalities are dominated by the Hungarians, who have sold them out to further own position. Problem of this multi-national empire will not be resolved any time soon. Now Russia: Russia didn't have to deal with revolutions in 1848 but its defeat in the Crimean War by B, F, and Turkey reveal the blatant problems in Russia that are just barely covered by this veneer of absolutism. Become clear even to most reactionary of absolutists that Russia is falling behind and needs to play catch up. Need to industrialize, modernize army, they need REFORM. *Czar Alexander II (1855-81) comes to power realizing this and proceeds to try and make changes. Serfdom still existed, and continuous subjugation of millions of peasants to their landlords is something that needs to change. Serf labor is too antiquated by this time to even think of competing with industrialized nations such as Germany and Britain. Simply put, guys can't even compete in the agricultural sphere (despite having miles of farmland). Serfs aren't educated, doesn't help when they are mobilized to fight a war (don't know how to operate complex weaponry or machines). Serfs rising up every so often a/g system, always put down. Alexander II sees this and realizes he needs to do something. Better to abolish from above than wait until it is absolished from below. *Issues edict on March 3, 1861 emancipating the serfs. Peasants can now own property, marry as they choose, bring suits in law courts. Gov provided land for peasants by purchasing it from large landowners (although landowners keep the best land for selves). Indeed while peasants can now own land, don't have arable lands to support selves, and isn't going to help any what with a growing population. Peasants have to repay state in long-term installments for these lands, insure payments are made peasants subject to authority of village communes referred to as the Mir, responsible for making sure peasants pay back money for land. Mir is the REAL owner of the land, consequently they want to make sure they can pay the gov back, so they make sure peasants don't leave land until they do. Free on paper but still serfs to a degree. *AII tries other reforms, instituting system of Zemstvos (local assemblies) that allowed for some self-gov. Representatives could be picked from noble landowners, townspeople, peasants. But property-based system of voting ensures nobles have distinct advantage in this system. Zemstvos had some power to provide public services such as education, famine relief, road/bridge maintenance, and could levy taxes to pay for these services. But efforts stymied by centralized bureaucrats who fear too much self-gov. So bodies not going to turn into Parliament any time soon. *AII successful in another respect in that he institutes the Legal Reforms of 1864, creates a uniform and regularly operating system of local and provincial courts, as well as judicial code that accepts principle of equality before law. *AII by instituting these reforms unleashes a whole generation of social reformers who are demanding more rapid change. One of most popular reform movements is created by Alexander Herzen, whose proposal 'Land and Freedom' advocated using the peasant as the chief instrument for social reform. Herzen believed peasants working in village communes could serve as the agents for creating self-governing bodies t/out Russia that would bring real and positive reform. Thing is many of the peasants aren't interested, and this leads more revolutionary individuals to commit acts of violence in hopes of energizing the peasants. *One female follower of H shoots and wounds governor-general of St. Petersburg to demonstrate this (put on trial but later acquitted, mainly because she comes from a noble, though poor noble, family). Leads to more radical groups such as the People's Will, a group of left-wing anarchists to emerge. They conspire to assassinate AII and do so by throwing a couple of bombs at him in 1881, which explodes, killing him. Action is part of larger plan by people referred to as anarchists, whose ideas were embodied in a contemporary of Tsar AII, Michael Bakunin. *Bakunin believed that small groups of fanatical revolutionaries could be trained well enough to perpetrate so much violence that the state and all its institutions would disintegrate, in which life will be open to all, everyone will take what he needs, men will live wisely and well, and Paradise will be established on Earth. Assassination was the anarchist's main tool to achieve this goal. Not only is AII assassinated, but a President of the French Republic also is in 1894, the King of Italy in 1900, and William McKinley president of the US in 1901. Here's the thing: Not only do the actions of anarchists not overthrow society, they tend to screw up progress being made. The day of his assassination, AII was about to announce plan to create a Duma (or Parliament) for russia that would have been a democratically elected body. If he were allowed to. have done so, Russia may have gone down the road of a constitutional monarchy and would have witnessed a much different future than it experienced. Instead, new Czar Alexander III (watched father die in front of him) decides to clamp down on reform, suppress civil liberties, and increase amount of police brutality. 1881-1917 period of Czarist repression.

So, we talked about France, Italy, and Germany during the 1860s. Now, we're going to talk about what's going on in Austria, Russia and England during the same time. We'll start with Austria. Despite putting down the liberal/nationalist revolutions (with Russian help) then not returning the favor to Russia during the Crimean War, Austria has stabilized the situation in her own country somewhat, but she's pretty much without allies (much to her chagrin when something like the Austro-Prussian war happens). Austria also has problems with the new changes that come with industrialization after 1850, although a unified system of laws, administration and taxation are forged. However, Austrian defeats in the Italian War of 1859 and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 bring changes. With defeat at the hands of the Prussians, the Austrians realize that to keep their empire together, they need to make nice with the Hungarians who have felt like second-class citizens for a long time. Therefore, Emperor Francis Joseph negotiates with the nationalistic Hungarians to forge the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867, which creates a Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. It's basically giving autonomous rule to Hungary. The Emperor is both monarch of Austria and Hungary, but each part of this dual monarchy has its own constitution, its own legislature, its own bureaucracy and its own capital (Vienna for Austria and Budapest for Hungary). The Austro-Hungarian monarch holds this empire together, and is in command of a common army, a common foreign policy, and a common system of finances. So Hungary becomes an independent nation within the empire. However, this autonomy does not extend to the other nationalities in the empire (Serbs, Poles, Slovenes, Czechs, Croats, Slovaks, etc.), and these nationalities are basically dominated by the Hungarians, who have effectively sold them out in order to further their own position. So the problem of this multi-national empire isn't going to be resolved any time soon. Now Russia. Russia didn't have to deal with any revolutions in 1848 but its defeat in the Crimean War by Britain, France, and Turkey reveal the blatant problems in Russia that are just barely covered by this veneer of absolutism. It's become clear even to the most reactionary of absolutists that Russia is falling severely behind and needs to play catch up. They need to industrialize, they need to modernize their army...basically they need REFORM. Czar Alexander II (1855-1881) comes to power realizing this, and proceeds to try and make changes. For example, serfdom still existed in Russia, and the continuous subjugation of millions of Russian peasants to their landlords is something that needs to change. Serf labor, to be honest, is too antiquated by this time to even think of competing with industrialized nations such as Germany and Britain. Simply put, these guys can't even compete in the agricultural sphere (despite having what seems to be endless miles of farmland!). The serfs aren't educated, and this doesn't help when they're mobilized to fight a war (they don't know how to operate complex machines or weaponry). Moreover, the serfs are rising up every so often against the system, but are always put down. Alexander II sees this and realizes he needs to do something about it, as it can't go on forever, saying that 'it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it is abolished from below.' Alexander issues an edict on March 3, 1861 emancipating the serfs. Peasants can now own property, marry as they choose, and bring suits in the law courts. The government provided land for the peasants by purchasing it from the large landowners (although the landowners keep the best lands for themselves...douches). Indeed, while the peasants can now own land, they don't have very arable lands to support themselves, and this isn't going to help any what with a growing population. Moreover, the peasants have to repay the state in long-term installments for these lands, and to insure the payments are made, peasants are subject to the authority of village communes referred to as the Mir, which is responsible for making sure the peasants pay back money for the land. So in many senses, the Mir is the real owner of the land. Consequently, they want to make sure that they can pay the government back, so they make sure that the peasants don't leave the land until they do. So, even though they're free on paper, they're still basically serfs. Alexander II nevertheless tries other reforms, such as instituting a system of Zemstvos (local assemblies) that allowed for some self-government. Representatives could be picked from the noble landowners, townspeople, and peasants. However, the property-based system of voting ensures that the nobles have a distinct advantage in this system. Zemstvos had some power to provide public services such as education, famine relief, and road/bridge maintenance, and they could levy taxes to pay for these services. However, their efforts are stymied by centralized bureaucrats, who fear too much self-government. So these bodies are not going to turn into a Parliament any time soon. Alexander II is successful in another respect in that he institutes the Legal Reforms of 1864, which creates a uniform and regularly operating system of local and provincial courts, as well as a judicial code that accepts the principle of equality before the law. Alexander II, however, by instituting these reforms unleashes a whole generation of social reformers who are demanding more rapid change. One of the most popular reform movements is created by Alexander Herzen, whose proposal of 'Land and Freedom,' advocated using the peasant as the chief instrument for social reform. Herzen believes that peasants working in village communes could serve as the agents for creating self-governing bodies throughout Russia that would bring real and positive reform. The thing is, many of the peasants aren't interested, and this leads more revolutionary individuals to commit acts of violence in the hope of energizing the peasants. One female follower of Herzen shoots and wounds the governor-general of St. Petersburg to demonstrate this (she's put on trial but later acquitted, mainly because she comes from a noble, albeit poor noble, family). This leads to more radical groups, such as the People's will, a group of left-wing anarchists, to emerge. They conspire to assassinate Alexander II and do so by throwing a couple of bombs at him in 1881, which explodes, killing him. This action is part of a larger plan by people referred to as anarchists, whose ideas were embodied in a contemporary of Tsar Alexander II, Michael Bakunin. He believed that small groups of fanatical revolutionaries could be trained well enough to perpetrate so much violence that the state and all its institutions would disintegrate, in which life will be open to all, everyone will take what he needs, men will live wisely and well, and Paradise will be established on Earth. Assassination was the anarchist's main tool to achieve this goal. Not only is Alexander II assassinated, but a President of the French Republic is in 1894, the King of Italy in 1900, and William McKinley, president of the United States, in 1901. Here's the thing, though. Not only do the actions of anarchists NOT overthrow society, they tend to screw up the progress being made. The day of his assassination, Alexander II was about to announce his plan to create a Duma (or Parliament) for Russia that would have been a democratically elected body. If he were allowed to have done so, then Russia may have gone down the road of constitutional monarchy and would have witnessed a much different future than it experienced. Instead, the new Czar, Alexander III (who watched his father die in front of him) who decides to clamp down on reform, suppress civil liberties, and increase the amount of police brutality. So basically, here's the moral: DON'T hang out with people who constantly talk about 'The Revolution,' and who fantasize that blowing something (or someone) up would 'be really cool.' All these morons succeed in doing is pissing people off. Just ask the Russian people after the death of Alexander II, as the period from 1881-1917 is what's called the period of 'Czarist repression.'

Second Boer War (1899-1902) *Boers launched this war for several reasons 1) While the Jameson Raid was a direct cause, the Boers were also 2) resentful of the fact when British took control of the Cape Colony, they had outlawed slavery and forced a lot of Dutch Boers to give up their slaves (issues that the Boers had such as feeling they were not properly compensated for giving up their slaves caused a good deal of resentment). *Consequently, Boers decided to move away from the CC by migrating inland (The Great Trek) and setting up new republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This led to the First Boer War of 1881, which the Br lost. By 1884, Boers were allowed by British to keep their states under certain conditions, although relations b/t the two parties remained tense (Lord Salisbury, who became the PM in the next year in 1885, referred to the treaty with the Boers as nothing more than a way for the boers to perpetuate slavery of the Black Africans). *When diamonds and gold were discovered in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, these countries became very rich but lack of manpower or industrial base to exploit this wealth. Boer govs reluctantly brought in foreign workers (mainly Br) to extract these resources (worked called Uitlanders, or Outlanders, by Boers). Problem was, when the Outlanders arrived, began to greatly outnumber the Boers. *3) This becomes problem when the Br authorities in the CC (who hoped to eventually dissolve both republics and incorporate into a larger British controlled colony) began to pressure the Boers to give more political and economic rights to the Outlanders. Leader of the Boers, Paul Kruger, disagreed with this as it would mean the ethnic Boers lose control of their own state. *So when Rhodes launched the Jameson Raid, the Boers felt even more pressured as this raid was meant to cause the Outlanders to revolt and take control of these republics so they could come under Br control. 4) Matters made even worse when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (increasingly becoming Br's main rival in the world) sent telegram to Kruger implying he would support the Boers should a conflict with the Br happen (rile up anti-German sentiment and anti-Boer sentiment in Br, making the British public more eager for war). 5) When the Boers under Kruger demand the Br withdraw their troops from Boer borders, they refuse. When the Br refuse, war is declared by the Boers. *British might have been able to avoid this war (PM, Lord Salisbury, despised Jingoism an extreme form of nationalism that escalated matters, and distrusted claims regarding supremacy of British Army), but to allow for a separate Dutch South Africa would have damaged imperial prestige. Moreover, PM Salisbury (even a white supremacist like Rhodes) was disgusted at Boer treatment of Black Africans, even worse than the British, who stopped their maltreatment at disenfranchisement of blacks. The British felt justified. *Boer War happened in three phases 1) Series of pre-emptive guerilla strikes by Boers on British military outposts in Br territory, series of tactical victories. 2) British response, in which British greatly reinforced thanks to drawing on troops from other areas of her empire (Canada, Australia, India) able to lift various sieges of their settlements by Boers, invade Transvaal, capture that republic's capital of Pretoria in 1900, and sending Kruger into exile for the rest of his life. 3) When Boers launch ruthless guerilla war in response, raiding troop columns, attacking communications such as telegraph sites, British railways, storage depots. *To cut off Boer supplies and curtail their raiding, British now under leadership of Lord Herbert Kitchener, proceed to launch a scorched earth policy of seizing and destroying Boer farms, and taking Boer civilians prisoner and putting them in makeshift concentration camps (first time camps used in modern history, 26k Boer women and children died due to conditions and undetermined number of Black Africans). When the Boers surrender in 1902, Britain surprisingly conciliatory, agreed British would form the Union of South Africa (in 1910) which absorbed the Transvaal and OFS, but gave these two states self-gov within Union. *British had less controversial success when colonizing other areas. Instead of necessarily founding colonies, would found 'protectorates' (leave the local native gov in place but serving as its main military force for that country). *Evident in 1882 in Egypt, when Arab and Islamic nationalists threaten to overthrow the Khedive (viceroy) of Ottoman Egypt and seize control of French built Suez Canal. Br naturally feared scenario, as this could threaten other major trade route with British India. The British along with help from France and forces from India, proceed to occupy Egypt, established a protectorate over the country as way of establishing control over canal. *While Egypt still formally belonged to OE, only nominal, and British formalized their protectorate by 1914, establishing puppet monarchy in Egypt who was friendly to Br interests. Met with resistance by nearby Sudan, where a revolt arose in the 1880s resisting Br influence, led by Muhammad ibn Abdalla, self-proclaimed Madhi (Guided One) who wanted to create an Islamic theocracy/ISIS-like state in Egypt and Sudan (and preserve the slave trade the British wanted to destroy). *Leads to sack of British held Khartoum (death of Br general Lord Gordon) and culminates in destructive war which only serves to weaken the Sudan (population during 1885-8 fell from 8-3 million due to war, disease, famine) and the Madhists eventually defeated by Anglo-Egyptian force which jointly administered the land. *Other protectorates included British East Africa (Kenya) which began as a trading colony before traders moved inland to establish Br influence. When trading colony met with financial setbacks and failed, Br came to establish a protectorate of the region, later made into royal colony in 1920. *France also gets in on action of colonizing parts of Africa. Algeria, possessed by France since 1830, finally opened to civilan colonization and gov in 1879, and many from France flock to settle there. *In Algeria, while French colonists are allowed civilian gov, native Berbers were under military rule, and not only are they denied Fr citizenship unless they renounce their Muslim faith; despite their general poverty are expected to pay the majority of taxes needed to finance the colony. French colonize elsewhere on the same lines. *On the pretext French shipping was being harassed by Barbary pirates, French colonize Tunisia (much to chagrin of newly united Italy) the last Barbary state, in 1881 (later on complete their dominance of much of N Africa by establishing protectorate in Morocco in 1912). *France also expands in Sahara and W Africa, creating the federation of French W Africa and moves into C Africa, creating federation of French Equatorial Africa by 1910. Other than Br, France largest colonial power on the continent. Other powers join in on colonization too. Kaiser Wilhelm II insistence on Germany's 'place in the sun' meant that country moved into region of Lake Victoria in 1880s, establishing German E Africa. Germans also established colonies in what is now Togo and Cameroon and Namibia. *Acquisitions of colonies, such as that of Namibia (or German S-W Africa) did not happen without resistance from the native pops. The Herero uprising in Namibia, which occurred in protest of the Germans seizing native property and trying to improse their laws on the natives, only put down after much resistance, as well as deaths of nearly 2k Germans and as many as 110k natives (many dying in early versions of concentration camps). After uprising, surviving natives were subject to apartheid-like (race segregation) existence to control them.

The Boers launch this war for a few reasons. While the Jameson Raid was certainly a direct cause, the Boers also were resentful of the fact that when the British took control of the Cape Colony, they had outlawed slavery and forced a lot of the Dutch Boers to give up their slaves (and here, issues that the Boers had such as feeling that they were not properly compensated for giving up their slaves caused a good deal of resentment). Consequently, the Boers decided to move away from the Cape Colony by migrating inland (called The Great Trek) and setting up their new republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This led to the First Boer War of 1881 which the British lost. By 1884, the Boers were allowed by the British to keep their states under certain conditions, although relations between the two parties remained tense (Lord Salisbury, who became Prime Minister the next year in 1885, referred to the treaty with the Boers as nothing more than a way for the Boers to perpetuate slavery of the Black Africans). When diamonds and gold were discovered in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (respectively), these countries become very rich, but lack the manpower or industrial base to exploit this wealth. Therefore, the Boer governments reluctantly brought in foreign workers (mainly British) to extract these resources (these workers were called Uitlanders, or Outlanders, by the Boers). The problem was, when the Outlanders arrived, they began to greatly outnumber the Boers. This becomes a problem when the British authorities in the Cape Colony (who hoped to eventually dissolve both republics and incorporate it into a larger, British controlled colony) began to pressure the Boers to give more political and economic rights to the Outlanders. The leader of the Boers, Paul Kruger, disagreed with this as it would eventually mean the ethnic Boers losing control of their own state. So when Rhodes launched the Jameson Raid, the Boers felt even more pressured as this raid was meant to cause the Outlanders to revolt and take control of these republics so that they could come under British control. Matters were made even worse when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (increasingly becoming Britain's main rival in the world) sent a telegram to Kruger implying that he would support the Boers should a conflict with the British happen (this only served to rile up anti-German and anti-Boer sentiment in Britain, making the British public more eager for war). When the Boers under Kruger demand that the British withdraw their troops from Boer borders. When the British refuse, war is declared by the Boers. The British might have been able to avoid this war (the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, despised Jingoism, an extreme form of nationalism that escalated matters, and distrusted claims regarding the supremacy of the British Army), but to allow for a separate Dutch South Africa would have damaged imperial prestige. Moreover, Prime Minister Salisbury (as well as even a white supremacist like Rhodes) was disgusted at Boer treatment of Black Africans, which was even worse than the British, who stopped their maltreatment at disenfranchisement of blacks.[1] Therefore the British felt justified in fighting this war. The Boer war happened in three phases. The first phase was a series of pre-emptive guerilla strikes by the Boers on British military outposts in British territory, resulting in a series of tactical victories. The second phase entailed the British response, in which the British, greatly reinforced thanks to drawing on troops from other areas of her empire (Canada, Australia, India, etc.) were able to lift the various sieges of their settlements by the Boers, and invade the Transvaal, capturing that Republic's capital of Pretoria in 1900, and sending Kruger into exile for the rest of his life. The third phase was when the Boers launched a ruthless guerilla war in response, raiding troop columns, attacking communications such as telegraph sites, as well as British railways and storage depots. To cut off Boer supplies and curtail their raiding, the British, now under the leadership of Lord Herbert Kitchener, proceeded to launch a scorched earth policy of seizing and destroying Boer farms, as well as taking Boer civilians prisoner and putting them into concentration camps (the first time these camps were used in modern history, in which 26,000 Boer women and children died due to terrible conditions). The war ended up being protracted and unpopular in Britain, not only when it took most of the British army to quell Boer resistance, but also when stories emerged of such atrocities as the concentration camps. This was also the most expensive war in British history (the equivalent of about $35 billion in today's money). Moreover, of all the European related wars between 1815 and 1914, it was the longest as well as the one with the biggest death toll (57,000 British and Boers, as well as an undetermined number of Black Africans). When the Boers surrender in 1902, Britain was surprisingly conciliatory, and it was agreed that the British would form the Union of South Africa (created in 1910), which absorbed the Transvaal and Orange Free State, but at the same time gave these two states self-government within the Union. The British had less controversial success when colonizing other areas. Indeed, instead of necessarily founding colonies, it would found "protectorates" (that is, leave the local native governments in place while at the same time serving as the main military force for that country). This is evident in 1882 in Egypt, when Arab and Islamic nationalists threaten to overthrow the Khedive of Ottoman Egypt and seize control of the French built Suez Canal. The British naturally feared such a scenario, as this could threaten their other major trade route with British India. Consequently, the British, along with help from France and forces from India, proceed to occupy Egypt, establishing a protectorate over the country as a way of establishing control over the canal. While Egypt still formally belonged to the Ottoman Empire, this was only nominal, and the British formalized their protectorate by 1914, establishing a puppet monarchy in Egypt who was friendly to British interests. This was met with resistance from nearby Sudan, where a revolt arose in the 1880s resisting British influence, led by Muhammad ibn Abdalla, the self-proclaimed Madhi (Guided One) who wanted to create an Islamic theocracy/ISIS-like state in Egypt and the Sudan (as well as preserve the slave trade that the British wanted to destroy). This leads to the sack of British held Khartoum (and the death of the British general Lord Gordon), and culminates in a destructive war which only serves to weaken the Sudan (the population falls during 1885-1898 from eight to three million due to war, disease and famine), and the Madhists are eventually defeated by an Anglo-Egyptian force which jointly administered the land. Other protectorates included British East Africa (now Kenya) which began as a coastal trading colony before traders moved inland to establish British influence. When the trading colony met with financial setbacks and failed, Britain came into establish a protectorate of the region, and later made it a Royal colony in 1920. As well as Britain, France gets in on the action of colonizing parts of Africa. Algeria, possessed by France since 1830, is finally opened to civilian colonization and government in 1879, and many from France flock to settle there. That being said, in Algeria, while French colonists are allowed civilian government, native Berbers were under military rule, and not only are they denied French citizenship unless they renounce their Muslim faith, despite their general poverty they are expected to pay the majority of taxes needed to finance the colony. The French colonize elsewhere along the same lines. On the pretext that French shipping was being harassed by Barbary pirates, the French colonize Tunisia (much to the chagrin of a newly united Italy), the last Barbary state, in 1881 (and later on complete their dominance of much of North Africa by establishing a protectorate in Morocco by 1912). France also expands into the Sahara and West Africa, creating the federation of French West Africa in later years, and moves into central Africa, creating the federation of French Equatorial Africa by 1910. Other than Britain, France was the largest colonial power there on that continent. Other powers joined in on colonization as well. Kaiser Wilhelm II's insistence on Germany's "place in the sun," meant that that country moved into the region of Lake Victoria in the 1880s, establishing German East Africa. The Germans also established colonies in what is now Togo as well as Cameroon and Namibia. Acquisitions of colonies, such as that of Namibia (or German South-West Africa) did not happen without resistance from the native populations. The Herero uprising in Namibia, which occurred in protest of the Germans seizing native property and trying to impose their laws on the natives, is only put down after much resistance, as well as the deaths of nearly 2,000 Germans, as well as many as 110,000 natives (with many natives dying in what could only be described as early versions of concentration camps). After the uprising, the surviving natives were subject to an apartheid-like existence in order to control them. [1] Oppression by degrees is still oppression, I know, but when reading this, one has to realize that this was a different time.

Ottoman Empire *By 1800 in trouble. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt led to real perception that the Ottomans were becoming increasingly weak, this could be seen that the governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, was able to effectively take control of that land and institute reforms to allow for more liberalized gov, and reverse economic decline. *Much of the chagrin of the Ottoman sultans (still nominally owned Egypt, and Ali made them look bad by doing what he did). Although the Ottomans had access to knowledge and tech of the Europeans when it held large amounts of Eu territory, this had changed when the territory dwindled in the 1700s, while at same time, Islamic fundamentalists in gov and groups like the Wahhabists prevented any new knowledge from coming to empire, for reason that people were becoming too enamored with the world and too lax in their rel policies. *A problem, considering when the 19th century and IR was coming in, the Turks lagging behind. Sultans like Selim III attempted efforts to at least reform the military by hiring Eu officers and try to make a new 'Eu style' army. Met with resistance from traditional janissary corps, who in 1807 stormed the palace, killed Eu officers and deposed Selim. To preserve their power, janissaries teamed with Islamic clergy, both had something to lose by reform. *Ottoman rulers hesitated to appeal for popular support, as philosophies like Nationalism were coming into other areas of Eu and causing trouble, and to appeal to the people might turn into a nightmare in the multicultural OE. *Mahmud II (1808-39) did issue some reforms and unlike Selim was able to get military reformed and found a medical university and a school of military science, and create a diplomatic corps, and made decrees making all subjects equal under law, and issue religious toleration. *Not exactly on par with revolutionary change, and for most poart the Ottoman state remained conservative in its old ways. However, everyone seemed vested in keeping Ottoman state afloat, and despite its economic woes, both international bankers and merchant classes always willing to loan the sultan money to keep debt-ridden gov running and economy going (artificially). *Because no one wanted a 'French Rev.' in the OE, turn into disaster. While the Russians and Austrians always game in taking Ottoman territory, it was in the interests of the Great Powers of Eu to keep the Sick Man of Eu alive (reason Crimean War was fought, to keep the OE intact so the balance of power in Europe wouldn't be jeopardized). *That being said, although everyone agreed that the Balance of Power couldn't be shifted in Europe, it could be shifted in places like Africa, which find itself carved up by European powers by 1914.

The Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire by 1800 was in trouble. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt led to the very real perception that the Ottomans were becoming increasingly weak, and this could be seen that the governor of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, was able to effectively take control of that land and institute reforms to allow for a more liberalized government, as well as reverse economic decline. This was much to the chagrin of the Ottoman sultans (who still, nominally, owned Egypt, and Ali made them look bad by doing what he did!). Although the Ottomans had access to the knowledge and technology of the Europeans when it held large amounts of European territory, this had changed when that territory had dwindled in the 1700s, while at the same time, Islamic fundamentalists in government and groups such as the Wahhabists prevented any new knowledge from coming into the empire, for the reason that people were becoming too enamored with the world and as a result too lax in their religious policies. This was a problem, considering that when the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution was coming in, the Turks were lagging behind. Sultans such as Selim III attempted efforts at least at reforming the military by hiring European officers and trying to make a new "European style" army. This was met with resistance from the traditional janissary corps, who in 1807 stormed the palace, killed the European officers, and deposed Selim. Indeed, in order to preserve their power, the janissaries teamed up with the Islamic clergy, as they both had something to lose by reform. Moreover, the Ottoman rulers hesitated to appeal for popular support, as philosophies like Nationalism were coming into other areas of Europe and causing trouble, and to appeal to the people might turn into a nightmare pretty quickly in the multicultural Ottoman empire. Mahmud II (1808-1839) did issue some reforms, and unlike Selim was able to get the military reformed as well as found a medical university and a school of military science, as well as create a diplomatic corps, and made decrees making all of his subjects equal under the law, as well as issuing religious toleration. These weren't exactly on par with revolutionary change, and for the most part the Ottoman state remained decidedly conservative in its old ways. However, everyone seemed vested in keeping the Ottoman state afloat, and despite its economic woes, both international bankers as well as the merchant classes were always willing to loan the sultan money to keep the debt-ridden government running and the economy going (albeit artificially). This was because no one wanted a "French Revolution" in the Ottoman Empire, as that would turn into an atomic sized powder keg if lit. Moreover, while the Russians and the Austrians were always game for taking Ottoman territory, it was in the interests of the Great Powers of Europe to keep the "Sick Man of Europe" alive (indeed, the reason that the Crimean War was fought was to keep the Ottoman Empire intact so that the balance of power in Europe wouldn't be jeopardized). That being said, although everyone agreed that the Balance of Power couldn't be shifted in Europe, it could definitely be shifted in places like Africa, which would find itself carved up by European powers by 1914.

*The Tokugawa Shogunate over years from 1600s to beginning of 1800s had power remain unchallenged. Shoguns were descendants of Tokugawa Ieyasu, his heirs had made sure to make marriage alliances with daimyo so by 19th century most of lords of realm related to family in one way. *Emperor's position largely religious and ceremonial, emperors tended to stay cooped away in palace at Kyoto. Loyalty to shogun was dogmatically demanded, ensured peace. With regard to samurai, Tokugawa regime required many of daimyos to cut down households to deter them from rebellion, so one still saw a lot of unemployed ronin running around, participating in jobs like bodyguards - escorts - menial labor - even starting own underground gangs. *Samurai with kept jobs tended to have a lot of free time, lack of conflict, while many still wore long and short swords as symbol of power, most often be employed as bureaucrats, administrators, courtiers than actual fighters. Japan continued practice of seclusion (sakoku) trading only with China, Korea, Netherlands but relegating those visitors to trading ports like Nagasaki. *Period of Late Tokugawa (Bakumatsu) (1825-1868). Change in Japan happened largely because of threat of increased foreign involvement in Far East. Trying to avoid dealing with Western powers directly, Japanese not ignorant of the problems such states as Qing dynasty faced from Europeans. Were forced to face the possibility of foreign involvement beginning in 19th. *In 1808, HMS Phaeton under command of Fleetwood Pellew sailed into Nagasaki harbor to seize Dutch ships (Netherlands reduced to protectorate by Napoleon, so Dutch ships seen as fair game by Br Navy), and demand supplies for his crew. *If refused, not only execute Dutch reps on the ship who had been taken hostage (Pellew sailed in under Dutch flag) but destroy every Chinese and Japanese ship in harbor. Japanese completely unprepared, most of 100 cannon had to defend the harbor were so old they couldn't fire properly, daimyo whose turn it was to defend the port (alternate attendance policy) undermanned the city as way to economize (200 instead of 1000 soldiers), and reinforcements would not arrive for days. *Consequently, Japanese had to meet demands of Pellew. Event called the Nagasaki Harbor Incident, became great concern to many J. By 1825, edict (Don't Think Twice Policy) passed down to expel all foreigners from J, prohibiting any contact with foreigners w/o shogunate approval. Not necessarily an isolated incident, American warship in 1837 intruded into Kagoshima Bay, and Eu ben considering J as either base for supply or place where shipwrecks could get assistance. *During this time, while efforts to keep foreigners out, nevertheless efforts to bring knowledge of foreign tech and innovation in, so if Eu did decide to start s't with J, then J would be on equal footing. Japanese samurai and engineer Takashima Shuhan proceeded to acquire weapons from Dutch in Nagasaki when considered up-to-date (field guns, mortars, riflges, pistols). Done to learn where they were made and how worked, so Japanese domains could learn to manufacture them (Satsuma and Saga domains had by 1852 reverbatory furnaces to produce firearms on large scale). *Actually part of a large ongoing debate, as Eu ships being found closer to Japanese shores getting more frequent. Some in lands who thought using Western tech would corrupt Japan from within and destroy it. Others argued while Japan's Eastern moralities should be preserved, it was necessary to utilize Western tech to defend it (Egawa Hidetasu - defend Tokyo Bay from any Western intrusion, argued Confucianism and Buddhism had come from abroad, so why not utilize tech from abroad?). Traditionalists prevailed, however, until arrival of US ships commanded by Commodore Matthew Perry... *Perry less than diplomatic, appearing in Tokyo Bay in 1853 demanding treaty with shogunate and using state of the art cannons of ship to show how he meant business, shelling a few buildings on harbor. Be back next year to talk, returned in 1854 Japanese divided on how to deal with him, so he met with Japanese representative Abe Mashiro, who was at a loss on what to do (no precedent for this). *Mashiro took conciliatory approach agreeing to terms which would allow Americans whaling rights in J waters, give good treatment to shipwrecked Am sailors, and create supply base where Americans can use at Shimoda and Hakodate. Followed up by Treaty of Amity and Commerce (Harris Treaty) in 1858, Americans argued that Japan should sign. *Europeans were willing to invade China to get their way, so partner with Americans would be peaceful alternative. *Treaty demanded that... a) Exchange of diplomatic agents b) Edo, Kobe, Nagasaki, Niigata, and Yokohama opening to foreign trade as ports. c) System of extraterritoriality that provided for subjugation of foreign residents to the laws of their own consular courts instead of Japanese law system. d) Fixed low import-export duties, subject to international control. e) Ability for Japan to purchase American shipping and weapons (three American steamships delivered to Japan in 1862). Gave a most favored nation status to the US, but rather than prevent further outside interference, only moved countries like Britain, Netherlands, Russia, France to force their OWN treaties of Amity and Commerce. *All treaties seen as unfavorable to Japan, fact these events followed by severe e-quakes did not do anything for Shogunate's credibility. *Treaties followed by large numbers of foreigners showing up in Nagasaki, Hakodate, and Yokohama, and the Japanese were less than pleased to deal with them. Opening up Japan to uncontrolled foreign trade destabilized the economy (some prospered, other businesses failed entirely). Introduction of foreign gold and silver to Japan forced gov to devalue its own currency and forced it to go off of its own gold standard. All happening at time when bad harvests made food scarce, and Eu brought cholera to Japan which killed tens of thousands. *Foreigners selves not having great time of it, between 1859-63 if a foreigner on the streets of Yokohama or Nagasaki even looked at a samurai funny, cut him to pieces (several instances of foreigners being killed, or J working with those foreigners being killed, commonplace). Shogunate did try to quell such violence, send embassies to US and Europe, even go so far as to start ordering first Japanese steam warships to build up their defenses (and fortify their harbors), but too little too late. *State of affairs caused the emperor to try and actively intervene, and pressure the shogun to issue edicts to expel all foreigners from J and close realm once more. Eus and Ams not seeing benefit of this, continued form of gunboat diplomacy to deter Japan from accomplishing this. *Between 1863-4 four different expeditions by various Eu powers to bombard the Japanese into submission, things not helped by two native uprisings that the shogunate had to put down. *Japanese threatened with having to pay indemnity to the Eu powers for bombarding them, forced to agree to Harris Treaty (US treaty mentioned earlier, Amity and Commerce) and open other ports to Eu's and lower any customs tariffs to uniform 5%. Clearly the Expulsion Order did not work, and now the Emperor and Shogunate at cross purposes. Conflict began to ensue between the two players, with the Emperor recruiting assassins and unemployed ronin in fighting force known as the shishi (some members also thinkers and political activists), while the shogunate sponsored creation of the shinsengumi an elite police force made up of samurai and members of fighting schools, with stronghold in Kyoto (job to keep order and protect shogun at all cost).

The Tokugawa Shogunate over the years from the 1600s on down to the beginning of the 1800s had its power remain unchallenged. Not only were the shoguns descendants of Tokugawa Ieyasu, his heirs had made sure to make marriage alliances with the daimyos so that by the 19th century most of the lords of the realm were related to the Tokugawa family in one way or another. The emperor's position was largely religious and ceremonial, and emperors tended to stay cooped away in their palace at Kyoto. Loyalty to the shogun was dogmatically demanded, and this ensured the peace. With regards to the samurai, the Tokugawa regime required many of the daimyos to cut down their households as a way of deterring them from rebellion, so one still saw a lot of unemployed ronin running around during this time, participating in jobs such as bodyguards, escorts, menial labor, or even starting their own underground gangs. The samurai who kept their jobs tended to have a lot of free time on their hands as a result of a lack of conflict, and while many of them still wore their long and short swords as a symbol of power, they would more often be employed as bureaucrats, administrators, or courtiers rather than actual fighters (laws stating that a samurai could cut down a commoner who did not show proper respect were still on the books, but it's debatable how many rude commoners were killed during this time, if any). Japan continued its practice of seclusion (sakoku), trading only with China, Korea, and the Netherlands, but relegating those visitors to trading ports like Nagasaki. Which leads us to the period of the Late Tokugawa, the Bakumatsu (1825-1868). Change in Japan happened largely because of the threat of increased foreign involvement in the Far East. While trying to avoid dealing with Western powers directly, the Japanese were not ignorant of the problems that states such as the Qing Dynasty were facing from Europeans. They were forced to face the possibility of foreign involvement beginning with the 19th century, however. In 1808, the HMS Phaeton under the command of Fleetwood Pellew, sailed into Nagasaki harbor to seize Dutch ships (by this time the Netherlands had been reduced to a protectorate by Napoleon, so the Dutch ships were seen as fair game by the British Navy), and demand supplies for his crew. If refused, he would not only execute the Dutch representatives on the ship who had been taken hostage (Pellew sailed in under a Dutch flag), he would aslo destroy every Chinese and Japanese ship in the harbor. The Japanese were completely unprepared, as the most of the 100 cannon they had to defend the harbor were so old they couldn't even fire properly, the daimyo whose turn it was to defend the port (defense of ports alternated between families as part of the alternate attendance policy) had undermanned the city as a way to economize (200 instead of 1000 soldiers), and reinforcements, when called out, would not arrive for days. Consequently, the Japanese had to meet the demands of Pellew. This event, called the Nagasaki Harbor Incident, became a great concern to many Japanese. By 1825, an edict (the "Don't Think Twice" policy) was passed down to expel all foreigners from Japan, prohibiting any contact whatsoever with foreigners without shogunate approval. This was not necessarily an isolated incident, as an American warship in 1837 had intruded into Kagoshima Bay, and Europeans had actively been considering Japan as either a base for supply or a place where shipwrecks could get assistance. During this time, while there were efforts to keep foreigners out, there were nevertheless efforts to bring knowledge of foreign technology and innovation in, so if the Europeans did decide to start something with Japan, then the Japanese would be on equal footing. The Japanese samurai and engineer, Takashima Shuhan, for example, proceeded to acquire weapons from the Dutch in Nagasaki which were considered "up-to-date" (field guns, mortars, rifles, pistols, etc.). This was done to learn how they were made and how they worked, so that the Japanese domains could learn to manufacture them (Satsuma and Saga domains had by 1852 reverberatory furnaces where they could produce firearms on a large scale). This was actually part of a large, ongoing debate, as European ships being found closer to the Japanese shores was getting more frequent. There were some in the land who thought that using Western technologies would corrupt Japan from within and end up destroying it. Others argued that, while Japan's Eastern moralities should be preserved, it was necessary to utilize Western technologies to defend it (Egawa Hidetasu, who was put in charge of defending Tokyo Bay from any Western intrusion, argued that Confucianism and Buddhism had come from abroad, so why not utilize technology from abroad?). Traditionalists appeared to prevail, however, until the arrival of U.S. ships commanded by Commodore Matthew Perry. Perry was less than diplomatic, appearing in Tokyo Bay in 1853 demanding a treaty with the shogunate, and using his state of the art cannons of his ship to show he meant business, shelling a few buildings in the harbor. He said he'd be back the next year to talk. When he returned in 1854, the Japanese were divided on how to deal with him, so he met the Japanese representative, Abe Mashiro, who was at a loss about what to do (there was just no precedent for this). Abe took a conciliatory approach, agreeing to terms which would allow for American whaling rights in Japanese waters, give good treatment to shipwrecked American sailors, and create a supply base which the Americans could use at Shimoda and Hakodate. This was followed up by the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in 1858, which the Americans argued that Japan should sign. The Europeans were willing to INVADE China to get their way, so to partner with the Americans would be a peaceful alternative. The treaty stipulated that: · exchange of diplomatic agents. · Edo, Kobe, Nagasaki, Niigata, and Yokohama's opening to foreign trade as ports. · ability of United States citizens to live and trade at will in those ports (only opium trade was prohibited). · a system of extraterritoriality that provided for the subjugation of foreign residents to the laws of their own consular courts instead of the Japanese law system. · fixed low import-export duties, subject to international control · ability for Japan to purchase American shipping and weapons (three American steamships were delivered to Japan in 1862). This gave a "most favored nation status" to the U.S., but rather than prevent further outside interference, this only moved countries like Britain, the Netherlands, Russia, and France to force their OWN treaties of "Amity and Commerce!" All of these treaties were seen as unfavorable to Japan, and the fact that these events were followed by severe earthquakes in Japan did not do anything for the Shogunate's credibility. The treaties were followed by large numbers of foreigners showing up in Nagasaki, Hakodate, and Yokohama, and the Japanese were, shall we say, less than pleased to deal with them. Opening up Japan to uncontrolled foreign trade destabilized the economy (some prospered, while the businesses of others failed entirely. The introduction of foreign gold and silver to Japan forced the government to devalue its currency and forced it to go off of its own version of the gold standard. This was all happening at a time when bad harvests made food scarce, and on top of everything, the Europeans unwittingly brought cholera to Japan which killed tens of thousands! Meanwhile, foreigners themselves weren't having a great time of it, as between 1859 and 1863, if a foreigner on the streets of Yokohama or Nagasaki, even so much as LOOKED at a samurai funny, the samurai would cut him to pieces (several instances of foreigners being killed, or Japanese working with those foreigners being killed, were commonplace). The shogunate did try to quell such violence, as well as send embassies to the U.S. and Europe, and even go so far as to start ordering the first Japanese steam warships to build up their defences (and also fortify their harbors), but for the moment this was seen as too little, too late. This state of affairs actually caused the emperor to try and actively intervene (which means that s—t just got real), and pressure the shogun to issue edicts to expel all foreigners from Japan and close the realm once more. The Europeans and Americans, not seeing the benefit of this, continued their form of gunboat diplomacy to deter Japan from accomplishing this. Between 1863-4, there were four different expeditions by various European powers to literally bombard the Japanese into submission, and things were not helped by two native uprisings that the shogunate had to put down. The Japanese, threatened with having to pay an indemnity to the European powers for bombarding them (!), were forced to agree to the Harris Treaty (that U.S. treaty mentioned earlier) as well as to open other ports to Europeans and lower any customs tariffs to a uniform 5%. Clearly the Expulsion Order did not work, and now the Emperor and the Shogunate were at cross purposes. Conflict began to ensue between the two players, with the Emperor recruiting assassins an unemployed ronin in a fighting force known as the shishi (although some members of this group were also thinkers and political activists), while the shogunate sponsored the creation of the shinsengumi, an elite police force made up of samurai and members of fighting schools, with their stronghold in Kyoto (their job was to keep order and protect the shogun at all costs).

*The other great Manchu emperor was Qianlong (1735-99). Culturally, Q wanted to preserve all cultures of his multi-peopled empire. Compiled histories of the Manchu people, presented self to his Mongolian and Tibetan pops in a Buddhist rather than a Confucian vein (calling self a boddhisatva). Promoted Confucianism as the main ideology of his gov, and a prolific writer (1,300 prose works and over 40,000 poems during reign). *Sponsored the Four Treasures Project, a series of writings consisting of 36k volumes which possessed every single writing of Chinese philosophy, lit, and history. But not done only for love of Chinese culture, but way to ferret out any works which might be a threat to Manchu regime. Resulted in banning (or burning) of about 3,100 lit works. *Effort to assert control also played in his religious policies. Sponsorship of Tibetan Buddhism was mainly to control his client ruler, the Dalai Lama, and with regards to Christianity, it was in contrat with Kangxi's toleration of that religion for most of his reign. Christianity in China, dominated by the Jesuits, had fallen out of favor as emperors began to distrust them with regards to ultimate motives. Consequently, Christianity was persecuted both by Q's father Yongzheng (1722-35) and Q himself (Jesuits still allowed at court as result of many skills, and few responsible for being architects of some of Q's myriad of palaces - an avid builder - but expected to keep thoughts on religion to selves). *China was at height of prosperity during his reign, though same years possessed seeds of Manchu decline. Militarily, his reign was mixed. Q emperor's armies campaigned a/g those Mongols and Central Asian peoples not yet under his rule (suppression of these peoples and some rebel tribesmen in Tibet, compared to calculated genocide) and successfully campaigned in Tibet to install the Dalai Lama as a client ruler. *Other military campaigns, such as Burma and Siam in SE Asia ended in failure (Chinese armies DID NOT do well in jungle warfare). One of reasons for failures is after years of military success, imperial gov no longer felt needed to be as stringent as they had been before with regard to discipline in the Chinese Army. Generals, who no longer fighted as much, no longer trained their troops as frequently and made them soft. *Technically, Q no fan of guns and went so far to limit or even ban their use in some military units and reintroduce the bow and arrow. *As part of domestic policies, responsible for re-settling Chinese refugees who had been made homeless by flooding or famine in homeland areas which necessitated reclamation (mainly southern Manchuria, previously forbidden for Han Chinese to live, which resulted in area largely being populated with Han Chinese by 1840s). Emperor largely popular with his subjects, ensuring to keep taxes low during his reign. *Despite most of his reign being largely successful, Q got soft in later years of reign. Power, glory, and success had spoiled him. Complacent, began to trust wrong people and started using officials who proved selves to be corrupt. Long term embezzlement, building projects, wars of conquest and wars to quell rebellion and emperor's extravagent lifestyle DRAINED treasury. By the 1790s, when emperor is too old to care, China clearly country in need of gov reform and Manchy by time is lethargic. Commented on by British ambassador, George McCartney, who was sent to China in 1793 by King George III to request use of ports to facilitate Britain's burgeoning trading and maritime empire. M and the emperor (Q) clearly didn't get along, especially because of M's refusal to kowtow to the emperor. Emperor, being unused to dealing with people not from tributary states, wasn't pleased and was already skeptical of the idea of Europeans leasing lands in his empire for trading purposes. *Refused M, stating if he were to grant the ambassador's request, he would have to grant the request of every other Eu country to set up shop in China, something he believed would result in those Eu viewing these leased lands as their own personal property (WAS RIGHT). M left China disappointed, but prescient of the regime's potential for decline. *Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War... which a fortunate succession of able and viligant officers have contrived to keep afloat for 150 years past, and to overawe their neighbors merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have command, farewell to discipline and safety of the empire. She may not sink outright ... but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom (part of M's memoirs). *The whole affair may have had something to do with court etiquette, as when Dutch traders requested same thing in 1795 and did kowtow, the emperor granted them permission without comment. Here, McCartney embassy may have been one in which the emperor was testing to see who was willing to work with him on his terms and who wasn't. *After Q's death (1799), Manchu China ran into problems thanks to drained imperial treasury. A political separatism seen in the White Lotus Rebellion (1796-1804). Q's resettlement policies not popular with some local pops who didn't welcome the newcomers, and resulted in the Miao Rebellion (1795-1806). These were instances of gov instability, which could be seen with regard to two attempts made on the emperor Jiaqing life in early 1800s. *While China still enjoyed favorable balance of trade with countries like Britain, countries like Britain sought to remedy this in underhanded ways (wanted to sell way China was able to sell porcelain, tea, silk). *Britain one of biggest buyers of Chinese tea, but needed to find good way to trade with the Chinese to make profits. As Chinese refused to trade any goods with them, many Br traders from the British East India Company resorted to growing opium in India and smuggling that opium with them to China to make a profit. This proved disasterous for China, while it created favorable balance of trade for B, multitudes of addicts in C and drained the treasury. *The Emperor Daoguang (1820-50) wrote to Queen Victoria, asking to use her influence to stop the opium trade, and even tried to get dealers to sto selling opium by promising them scores of tea. When this failed, he received no response from queen, decided to crackdown on drug by going to areas where dealers were located, and seizing over 2.6M pounds of opium. *Led to East India Company to use its influence with Whig gov in Britain to launch the First Opium War (1839-42). *Superior British naval power exposed weakness of Chinese military, whose boats no match for British. British able to capture cities and blockade major ports, basically inhibiting China's ability to wage a war, and conflict was brought to end by the Treaty of Nanking, in which China had to pay Britain ridiculous amount of money for destruction of opium, lease of five C ports to B traders, and ceding of island of Hong Kong to B. *Not enough in eyes of some B, were willing to fight a Second Opium War (1856-60 with help from France because NIII always wanted in on action), thanks to superior B and F military firepower, the Qing army was almost completely annihilated and Beijing ended up being captured, with the Forbidden City nearly destroyed. *B, France, and Russia all got more leases of ports and possessions in the peace treaty, the opium trade was legalized (Christianity once again tolerated). Began what Chinese call 'century of humiliation' at hands of foreign powers. *People in B heavily divided over war. While some as Whig gov of Palmerston, believed free trade should extend to opium dealers, others like Gladstone's liberal opposition, thought outright immoral British soldiers should be risking their lives just so some drug dealers had right to trade something that was known to kill people (Gladstone's sister an opium addict for time). *These events caused a major rebellion to break out in the 1850s known as the Taiping Rebellion (1850-64). Lost credibility of the Qing gov because of its loss to Eu powers led some in China to believe Qing had lost its Mandate of Heaven. *Gov was terribly corrupt, emperor's subjects were overtaxed, rents rising, an epidemic of opium. The man to take advantage of this was a failed civil service examinee Hong Xiuquan, after an illness claimed to experience visions where he came to believe he was younger brother of Jesus Christ. Christian missionaries refused to baptize him, not only because it was a heretical claim but seemed Hong was using this to claim a following that may have been more political than religious. *Out of this following, Hong and followers create belief system known as the Taiping faith, a mix of Christian, Daoist, Confucian, and millennial beliefs. Turned to movement which when Qing tried to suppress it, turned to force which employed guerilla tactics to wage war a/g Qing gov with hope of overthrowing it and establishing a Kingdom of Heaven on earth. *During 14-year rebellion, Taiping able to take scores of cities (including major city of Nanking, made their capital) in the Yangtze river valley. Tide turned a/g them in 1860 when failed to take Shanghai (did not fall largely because of Qing gov had Eu help in form of Br/Fr military forces and advisors) and suffered disasterous 'Northern Expedition' where failed to go north to take Beijing. *By time rebellion qushed, China witnessed Nian Rebellion, Muslim rebellion that killed 100k people, and Red Turban Rebellion killing 2m. Discontent with Qing regime would continue with events such as Boxer Rebellion in 1900, would betray fact that to continue to survive, the Qing had to depend on Eu powers to prop it up, while at the same time was completely helpless to stop those same Eu powers whenever they wanted to take a port here/there (by 1900, China had to tolerate presence of B, F, P, R, A, G, and J military forces in lands). *In 1911 Manchu Dynasty was overthrown, Republic of China set in place. Aside from corruption and lethargy that China had suffered during years after death of Q, one of main reasons it had lost out to Eu was it had been insulated for years and wasn't able to meet new challenges with the coming of Eu. A similar situation faced by Tokugawa Shogunate.

The other great Manchu emperor was Qianlong (1735-1799). Culturally, Qianlong wanted to preserve all of the cultures of his multi-peopled empire. He compiled histories of the Manchu people, presented himself to his Mongolian and Tibetan populations in a Buddhist rather than Confucian vein (calling himself a boddhisatva). He promoted Confucianism as the main ideology of his government, and was a prolific writer, writing 1,300 prose works and over 40,000 poems during his reign. He also sponsored the Four Treasures Project, which was a series of writings consisting of 36,000 volumes which possessed every single writing of Chinese philosophy, literature, and history. However, this was done not only for a love of Chinese culture, but also a way to ferret out any works which might be seen as a threat to the Manchu regime. This resulted in the banning (or burning) of about 3,100 literary works. This effort to assert control also played a part in his religious policies. His sponsorship of Tibetan Buddhism was mainly to control his client ruler, the Dalai Lama, and with regards to Christianity, it was in contrast with Kangxi's toleration of that religion for most of his reign. Christianity in China, dominated by the Jesuits, had fallen out of favor, as the emperor's began to distrust them with regards to their ultimate motives. Consequently, Christianity was persecuted both by Qianlong's father Yongzheng (1709-22) and by Qianlong himself (Jesuits were still allowed at court as a result of their many skills, and a few were responsible for being the architects of some of Qianlong's myriad of palaces—he was an avid builder—but were expected to keep their thoughts on religion to themselves). China was at the height of its prosperity during his reign, although those same years possessed the seeds of Manchu decline. Militarily, his reign was mixed. The Qianlong emperor's armies campaigned against those Mongols and other Central Asian peoples not yet under his rule (although his suppression of these peoples, as well as that of some rebel tribesmen in Tibet, has been compared to calculated genocide) and successfully campaigned in Tibet in order to install the Dalai Lama as a client ruler. Other military campaigns, though, such as against Burma and Siam in southeast Asia, ended in failure (Chinese armies did NOT do well with regards to jungle warfare). One of the reasons for such failures is that, after years of military success, the imperial government no longer felt that they needed to be as stringent as they had before with regards to discipline in the Chinese Army. Moreover, generals, who no longer had to fight as much, no longer trained their troops as frequently, making them soft. Technically, Qianlong, no fan of guns, actually went so far as to limit or even ban their use in some military units and re-introduce the bow and arrow! As part of his domestic policies, Qianlong was responsible for re-settling Chinese refugees who had been made homeless by either flooding or famine in their homelands in areas which necessitated reclamation (mainly in southern Manchuria, where it was previously forbidden for Han Chinese to live, which resulted in the area largely being populated with Han Chinese by the 1840s). The emperor was largely popular with his subjects, ensuring to keep taxes low during his reign. Despite most of his reign being largely successful, Qianlong got soft in the later years of his reign. Power, glory, and success had spoiled him. Complacent, he began to trust the wrong people, and started using officials who proved themselves to be comically corrupt. Long term embezzlement, building projects, wars of conquest and wars to quell rebellion as well as the emperor's extravagant lifestyle had drained the treasury. By the 1790s, when the emperor is too old to care much about doing anything, China is clearly a country in need of government reform, and the Manchu by this time is lethargic. This was commented on by a British ambassador, George McCartney, who was sent to China in 1793 by King George III to request the use of ports to facilitate Britain's burgeoning trading and maritime empire. McCartney and the emperor clearly did not get along, especially because of McCartney's refusal to kowtow to the emperor. The emperor, unused to dealing with people who were not from tributary states, was not pleased, and he was already skeptical of the idea of Europeans leasing lands in his empire for trading purposes (and here he was probably right). He refused, stating that if he were to grant the ambassador's request, then he would have to grant the request of every other European country to set up shop in China, something that he believed would result in those Europeans viewing these leased lands as their own personal property (and here he WAS right). McCartney left China, disappointed, but seemingly prescient of the regime's potential for decline. The Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of able and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these hundred and fifty years past, and to overawe their neighbours merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have the command on deck, adieu to the discipline and safety of the ship. She may, perhaps, not sink outright; she may drift some time as a wreck, and will then be dashed to pieces on the shore; but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom (McCartney's memoirs). That being said, the whole affair may have had something to do with court etiquette, as when Dutch traders requested the same thing in 1795 and DID kowtow, the emperor granted their request without comment. Here, the McCartney embassy may have been one in which the emperor was testing who was willing to work with him on his terms and who was not. After Qianlong's death, Manchu China ran into problems, mainly thanks to a drained imperial treasury. There was political separatism in Western China, as could be seen with the White Lotus Rebellion (1796-1804). Qianlong's resettlement policies were not popular with some local populations who didn't exactly welcome the newcomers, and this resulted in the Miao Rebellion (1795-1806). There were instances of government instability, which could be seen with regards to two attempts actually being made on the emperor Jinqiang's life in the early 1800s. Moreover, while China still enjoyed a favorable balance of trade with countries like Britain, countries like Britain sought to remedy this in sometimes underhanded ways (they wanted to sell goods the way that China was able to sell porcelain, tea, and silk). See, Britain was one of the biggest buyers of Chinese tea, but needed to find a good which they could trade with the Chinese in order to make profits. As the Chinese refused to trade any goods with them, many British traders from the British East India Company resorted to growing opium in India and smuggling that opium into China in order to make profits. This proved a disaster for China, and while it created a favorable balance of trade for Britain, it created multitudes of addicts in China and drained the treasury. The Emperor Daoguang (1820-1850) wrote to Queen Victoria, asking her to use her influence to stop the opium trade, and even tried to get the dealers to stop selling opium by promising them scores of tea. When this failed and he received no response from the queen, he decided to crackdown on the drug by going into the areas where the dealers were located and seizing over 2.6 million pounds of opium. This led the East India Company to use its influence with the Whig government in Britain to launch the First Opium War (1839-1842), in which superior British naval power exposed the weakness of the Chinese military, whose boats were no match for the British. The British were able to capture cities and blockade major ports, basically inhibiting China's ability to wage a war, and the conflict was brought to an end by the Treaty of Nanking, in which China had to pay Britain a ridiculous amount of money for destruction of the opium, the lease of five Chinese ports to British traders, and the ceding of the island of Hong Kong to Britain. This was not enough in the eyes of some British, who were willing to fight the Second Opium War (1856-1860 with help from France, because Napoleon III always wanted in on the action!), in which, thanks to superior British and French military firepower, the Qing army was almost completely annihilated and Beijing ended up being captured, with the Forbidden City nearly being destroyed. Britain, France, and Russia all got more leases of ports and possessions in the peace treaty, the opium trade was legalized (Christianity was once again tolerated). This began what the Chinese call the "century of humiliation" at the hands of foreign powers. It should be said, however, that people in Britain were heavily divided over the war. While some, such as the Whig government of Palmerston, believed that free trade should extend to opium dealers, others, such as Gladstone's liberal opposition, thought it was outright immoral that British soldiers should be risking their lives just so some drug dealers had the right to trade something that was known to kill people (Gladstone's sister had been an opium addict for a time). These events caused a major rebellion to break out in the 1850s known as the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864). The lost credibility of the Qing government as a result of its loss to European powers led some in China to believe that Qing had lost the Mandate of Heaven. The government was terribly corrupt, the emperor's subjects were overtaxed, rents were rising, there was an epidemic of opium, China was a mess. The man to take advantage of this was a failed civil service examinee by the name of Hong Xiuquan, who, after an illness, claimed to experience visions where he came to believe that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ. Christian missionaries, understandably, refused to baptize him, not only because this was a ridiculous (and heretical) claim, but also because it seemed that Hong was using this to claim a following that may have been more political than religious in nature. Out of this following, Hong and his followers created a belief system known as the Taiping faith, which was a mix of Christian, Daoist, Confucian, and millennial beliefs. This turned into a movement which, when the Qing tried to suppress it, turned into a force which employed guerilla tactics to wage war against the Qing government with the hope of overthrowing it and establishing a kingdom of Heaven on Earth. During the fourteen year rebellion, the Taiping were able to take scores of cities (including the major city of Nanking, which they made their capital) in the Yangtze river valley. The tide turned against them in 1860, when they failed to take Shanghai (which did not fall largely because the Qing government had European help in the form of British and French military forces and advisors), and suffered a disastrous "Northern Expedition" where they failed to go north to take Beijing. By the time the rebellion was quashed, 20 to 30 people had died in the rebellion (thanks to battle, plague, and famine). On top of this, during these years China witnessed as well the Nian Rebellion, a Muslim rebellion that killed 100,000 people, and the Red Turban Rebellion, which killed two million. Discontent with the Qing regime would continue to be seen with events such as the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and would betray the fact that, in order to continue to survive, the Qing had to depend on European powers to prop it up, while at the same time was completely helpless to stop those same European powers whenever they wanted to take a port here and a port their (by 1900, China had to tolerate the presence of British, French, Portuguese, Russian, American, German, and Japanese military forces in its lands). It comes as no surprise, then, when in 1911, the Manchu Dynasty was overthrown, and a Republic of China was set up in its place. Aside from the corruption and lethargy that China had suffered during the years after the death of Qianlong, one of the main reasons it had lost out to the Europeans was that it had been insulated for years and wasn't able to meet the new challenges that arose with the coming of the Europeans. A similar situation was faced by Tokugawa Japan, and it is to that subject we shall now turn.

*By 1853, war erupts between Russian and Ottoman empires, on grounds that R demands right to protect Christians in Holy Land, privilege had already been given to NIII. When Ottomans refuse R on these grounds, R occupies Turkish provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia, Following year, hoping to frustrate R efforts to undermine the Ottomans, F and B declare war on R. *Why? First of all, F and B fear balance of power would be upset by R ambitions. If R was successful in seizing Ottoman lands, including Dardanelles, not only get warm water port (dream of Tsars) but perhaps challenge supremacy of Br navy in Eastern Med. NIII for his part, feels R have insulted F via their insistence on replacing them as protectors of Christians in the OE. As well as this, the Fr are in agreement they don't want to see R power grow at expense of Ottomans. *R hopes it can depend on Austria to help them out (A saved by R intervention in 1849!). A, however, declared it will astonish the world by ingratitude, tells R they're sitting this one out and remaining neutral. Crimean War: Badly planned and poorly fought *B and F decide strategy will be to take war to the R, and invade the Crimean peninsula in order to capture the major Russian port of Sevastopol. War is perhaps best remembered for the suicidal charge of Light Brigade, Br cavalry troop, at the Battle of Balaklava. War is destructive, costing lives of 250k soldiers, 60% died not on battlefield but due to disease like cholera. *Such pepole as Florence Nightingale able to mitigate this somewhat, insisting on better sanitation in Br field hospitals and thanks to her efforts, nursing emerges as profession amongst middle class women. Despite setbacks, F and B forces captured fortress of Sevastopol in 1855, with new Tsar Alexander II sued for peace. *R agrees to give up lands in Balkans and has to recognize Black Sea as neutral body of water. Moldavia and Wallachia seized by R during war, now under supervision of all Great Powers. The Crimean War is important in that it effectively destroys the Concert of Europe. A and R now enemies, as A sits out the war (doesn't have any friends in Eu thanks to neutrality). R, defeated and humiliated and thinking that serf armies aren't most motivated, withdraws from Eu affairs to set its house in order. *B, disillusioned by war despite being victor, pulls back from Continental affairs for a time. Napoleon III however, controls the peace negotiations and spins it so France is a victorious power, and this increases his prestige in Europe. *In other respects in later years, NIII not as successful as his militarily-minded uncle. Tries to take advantage of fighting between conservative and liberal factions in Mexico, and along with Br and Sp sends Fr troops to country to protect his economic interests. *After order is restored, however NIII's forces remain in MX and by 1864, he installs the Archduke of Austria, Maximilian, as a new emperor of MX, in which that country would be a Fr puppet state. This arrangement doesn't last, not only are troops that Maximilian withdrawn when they are needed in Eu, but also US pressure (occupied with problem of civil war but when that conflict ends diplomatic pressure applied to Fr to get out of MX) leaves Maximilian without army. *M forced to surrender to liberal Mexican forces in 1867, despite pleas of his wife to NIII to save her husband, he doesn't do a thing. M is executed in June 1867, huge blow to his prestige.

This isn't to say that Napoleon III is a complete failure during his reign. For example, he makes great progress in making France the arbiter of Europe when the Ottoman Empire, now in complete decline, is being taken advantage of by various European powers. By the 1850s, the Ottoman Empire, in the words of Czar Nicholas I, is 'the sick man of Europe.' This sickness has been a long one: it lost Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and Slovenia to the Austrians in 1699, loses its northern Black Sea possessions as well as what is now Eastern Romania to the Russians in the 18th and early 19thcenturies, has to accept Serbia and Greece's independence in the late 1820s, and loses Algeria to the French in 1830. Moreover, some of its richer provinces, such as Egypt, have gained autonomy. So it's on the downslide, and can't do much about it. The one European power that wants to really take advantage of this is Russia, which argues for further intervention in the Ottoman Empire on the grounds that the Russians want to protect Orthodox Christians living in that Muslim regime. The other European powers are wary of Russian ambitions: Austria doesn't want to lose out on expanding in the Balkans, and France and Britain both want to protect their commercial interests and naval bases in the region. Therefore, by 1853, war erupts between the Russian and Ottoman empires, on the grounds that Russia demands the right to protect Christians in the Holy Land, a privilege that had already been given to Napoleon III. When the Ottomans refuse Russia on these grounds, Russia occupies the Turkish provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia. The following year, hoping to frustrate Russian efforts to undermine the Ottomans, the French and British declare war on Russia. Why? Well, first of all, France and Britain fear the balance of power would be upset by Russian ambitions. Moreover, if Russia was successful in seizing Ottoman lands, including the Dardanelles, it would not only get a warm water port (a dream of the Tsars for some time) but it could also perhaps challenge the supremacy of the British navy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Napoleon III, for his part, feels that the Russians have insulted France via their insistence on replacing them as protectors of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. As well as this, the French are in agreement that they don't want to see Russian power grow at the expense of the Ottomans. Russia hopes it can depend on Austria to help them out (after all, the Austrians were saved by Russian intervention in 1849). Austria, however, declared that 'we will astonish the world by our ingratitude,' and tells the Russians that they're sitting this one out and remaining neutral. Russia has to fight what becomes known as the Crimean War alone. The Crimean War is perhaps one of the dumbest wars ever, as it was badly planned and poorly fought. Britain and France decide their strategy will be to take the war to the Russians, and invade the Crimean peninsula in order to capture the major Russian port of Sevastopol. The war is perhaps best remembered for the suicidal charge of the Light Brigade, a British Cavalry troop, at the Battle of Balaklava. The war is destructive, costing the lives of 250,000 soldiers, 60% of whom died not on the battlefield but because of diseases such as cholera. Such people as Florence Nightingale are able to mitigate this somewhat, insisting on better sanitation in British field hospitals, and thanks to her efforts, nursing emerges as a profession amongst middle class women. Despite these setbacks, French and British forces captured the fortress of Sevastopol in 1855, with the new Tsar, Alexander II, suing for peace. In the peace treaty signed at Paris, Russia agrees to give up lands in the Balkans and has to recognize the Black Sea as a neutral body of water. Moldavia and Wallachia, seized by Russia during the war, now is under the supervision of all the Great Powers. The Crimean War is important in that it effectively destroys the Concert of Europe. Austria and Russia are now enemies, as Austria sits out the war (moreover, she doesn't have any friends in Europe now thanks to her neutrality). Russia, defeated and humiliated and thinking that serf armies aren't the most motivated, withdraws from European affairs to set its house in order. Britain, disillusioned by the war despite being a technical victor, pulls back from Continental affairs for a time. Napoleon III, however, controls the peace negotiations, and spins it so that France is a victorious power, and this increases his prestige in Europe. But in other respects in later years, Napoleon III wasn't as successful as his militarily-minded uncle. For example, he tries to take advantage of fighting between conservative and liberal factions in Mexico, and along with Britain and Spain sends French troops to that country to protect his economic interests there. After order is restored, however, Napoleon III's forces remain in Mexico and by 1864, he installs the Archduke of Austria, Maximilian, as a new emperor of Mexico, in which that country would essentially be a French puppet state. This arrangement doesn't last for long, as not only are the troops that Maximilian has withdrawn when they are needed in Europe, but also U.S. pressure (they were occupied with the problem of civil war but when that conflict ends they apply diplomatic pressure to France to get out of Mexico) leaves Maximilian without an army. Maximilian is forced to surrender to liberal Mexican forces in 1867, and despite the pleas of his wife to Napoleon III to save her husband, he doesn't do a thing. Maximilian is executed in June 1867, and this is a huge blow to the prestige of Napoleon III.

*CHINA during the mid-19th century... By beginning of 17th century, Ming China dominated by eunuchs at imperial court, who began to control access to the emperor, and basically wrested control of the gov away from scholar classes and the emperor's other ministers. War with Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi in Korea produced a drain on the treasury at time when Ming was experiencing economic downturn. At same time: famine, epidemic (smallpox or bubonic plague), and even e-quakes hit China. *With these events, Ming Dynasty was vulnerable and found power challenged by series of peasant rebellions in 1630s, especially after series of new outbreaks of epidemics. Most serious rebellion that of one by failed postal worker Li Zicheng, started uprising that culminated with him forming large army and fighting series of battles successfully a/g Ming forces, not only trying to maintain order after series of floods but fend off incursions from tribes based in Manchuria. *Claiming the Mandate of Heaven, Zicheng institutes the Shun Dynasty, but short-lived (killed in battle, those Manchurian tribes led by a Jurchen named Nurhaci gains upper hand over Ming). *Nurhaci descended from the Jurchen who founded the Jin dynasty, but unlike Jin gained power in first couple decades of 1600s to be recognized as both leader of Mongols and Jurchen. *Organized his army into elite forces which were collectively known as the Eight Banners, launched attacks upon Ming China. Not completely unopposed in his takeover of China, mainly because later Ming emperors had alienated a lot of potential allies due to their mismanagement (led ordinary Chinese men to join the Eight Banners in droves to point they outnumbered the Manchu and Mongol members of their ranks). *Nurhaci able to bring a lot of Chinese generals and scholars to his side who he needed as advisers if he wanted to take over China and have some legitimacy in the eyes of Han Chinese who would view he/family as foreigner. Not the one to overthrow the Ming Dynasty BUT laid groundwork for his successors to eventually overthrow the dynasty and establish a new Qing (Manchu) dynasty by 1644 (last Ming emperor committing suicide in shame). *Under the rule of regent Dorgon (1644-50), Chinese military organized along Manchu lines, forces having their own 'Banner' armies equipped with gunpowder weaponry, while home forces were referred as the Green Standard Army (Manchu forces kept in reserve as to protect their numbers). The Manchu tried to ingratiate themselves with Han Chinese by allowing Manchu women and Han Chinese men to intermarry, but Dorgon's decrees set aside a Confucian style of gov, and all adult Han men cut their hair to a Manchu style queue (loyalty test to new regime), highly unpopular and resulted in rebellion (cut hair in non-Chinese manner seen as filial impiety in Confucian tradition) tens of thousands died. *As way to smooth things over, Emperor Shunzhi (1643-61) purged Dorgon's Manchu officials, stamped out corruption (including deal with mass cheating scandal in civil service system), revive Chinese Confucian style of gov to attract a number of Han Chinese recruits. *Though use of eunuchs had been abolished under Dorgon, re-introduced to counter influence of Shunzhi's enemies at court (of course problems of eunuchs too). *S spent much of his reign pacifying areas of Southern China which still had Ming sympathies and putting down rebellions set by group of Muslims in Western China, and campaigning in Vietnam. *Diplomatically, seems to have enjoyed good relations with Mughal India and Tibet. Though he subscribed to Buddhist religion, welcomed Jesuit missionaries to court and got on well with them (Jesuits powerful at court, serving as advisers, astronomers, interpreters, mathematicians, even weapons experts to imperial gov, but lost influence to a degree because of infighting b/t Jesuits and Dominican missionaries, who disagreed over whether ancestral veneration was compatible with Christianity). *The second emperor, Kangxi, was only 7 when he came to the throne and was one of the longest reigning rules ever (1661-1722). Also considered one of China's greatest emperors, and he was known to be a workaholic. *Gained popularity not only for engineering effective flood control of the Yellow River, but made comprehensive repairs to the Grand Canal and did so while at same thing being able to cut taxes. *Early reign still had to contend not only with Ming Loyalists in the south (Great Clearance in 1662, loyal population was evacuated from southern coast solely so Manchu could exterminate any resistance movements). But also former allied generals, the 'Three Feudatories' who had built up power bases in Southern China who had then rebelled (K able to use the Green Standard Army to put down rebellions, which were quashed by 1681). *As far as expansion went, K campaigned in and conquered Tibet, Taiwan, and oversaw operations a/g Russian forces which ended in victory, and effectively annexing Mongolia. Consequently, Manchu China was the largest of ALL Chinese states in the civilization's entire history, and the emperor was known to make regular tours of his realm. *Economically, China was prosperous and by middle of K's reign enjoyed first real stability for a century. To court support of Confucian scholars (some whom still loyal to Ming), commissioned one of the first dictionaries in existence. Despite courting their support, he had an alternate way of communication along with the 'official state communication' that was known as the 'Palace Memorial System' which allowed him to communicate directly with officials of his provinces (the scholar bureaucrats had a bad habit of withholding info from the emperor as it suited them). *He also ordered publihshing of compilation of Tang poetry, invented new Chinese calendar, and was first Chinese emperor to play a western instrument (Spinet, a type of harpsichord). During this time, Chinese blue and white porcelain was a major industry, and especially sought after. *While a Buddhist himself, he is known for issuing an edict of toleration of Christianity in China, in contrast with policies of Tokugawa Japan. Only true mark a/g his reign was a short-lived conflict which involved succession of his sons, but left China in a better state than when he became emperor.

Today we're going to get away from Europe and discuss what was happening in other parts of the world down to the mid-19th century. Let's take a look back at China, which we last examined when the Ming Dynasty was experiencing decline in the 1600s. By the beginning of the 17th century, Ming China found itself being dominated by eunuchs at the imperial court, who began to control access to the emperor, and who had basically wrested control of the government away from the scholar class as well as the emperor's other ministers. War with the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi in Korea had produced a drain on the treasury at a time when the Ming was experiencing an economic downturn. At the same time, famine, epidemic (possibly smallpox or bubonic plague), and even earthquakes hit China. With these events, the Ming Dynasty was vulnerable, and found their power eventually challenged by a series of peasant rebellions in the 1630s, especially after a series of new outbreaks of epidemics. The most serious rebellion was that of one by a failed postal worker called Li Zicheng, who started an uprising that culminated with him forming a large army and fighting a series of battles successfully against Ming forces, who were not only trying to maintain order after a series of floods hit China, but also trying to fend off incursions from tribes based in Manchuria. Claiming the Mandate of Heaven, he institutes the Shun Dynasty, but this dynasty is short-lived, as Zicheng was killed in battle, and those Manchurian tribes, led by a Jurchen named Nurhaci, gains the upper hand over the Ming. Nurhaci was descended from the Jurchen who founded the Jin Dynasty, but unlike the Jin, actually gained enough power in the first couple of decades of the 1600s to be recognized as leader of both the Mongols and the Jurchen. Using this power, he organized his army into elite forces which were collectively known as the Eight Banners, and launched attacks upon Ming China. He was not completely unopposed in his takeover of China, mainly because the later Ming emperors had alienated a lot of potential allies due to their mismanagement (indeed, dissatisfaction with the Ming led ordinary Chinese men to join the Eight Banners army in droves to the point that they outnumbered the Manchu and Mongol members of their ranks). Nurhaci was able to therefore bring a lot of Chinese generals and scholars over to his side, whom he would need as advisers if he wanted to take over China as well as have some legitimacy in the eyes of the Han Chinese who would view he and his family as a foreigner. Though he was not the one to overthrow the Ming Dynasty, he laid the groundwork for his successors to eventually overthrow the dynasty and establish a new Qing (or Manchu) Dynasty by 1644 (the last Ming emperor committed suicide in shame). Under the rule of the regent Dorgon (1644-1650), the Chinese military was organized along Manchu lines, with its forces having their own "Banner" armies equipped with gunpowder weaponry, while the home forces would be referred to as the Green Standard Army (Manchu forces would be kept in reserve as to protect their numbers). The Manchu, as they were known, tried to ingratiate themselves with the Han Chinese by allowing Manchu women and Han Chinese men to intermarry, but Dorgon's decrees that set aside a Confucian style of government, as well as a decree that all adult Han men cut their hair into a Manchu style queue (meant as a loyalty test to the new regime), was highly unpopular and resulted in rebellions (to cut the hair in a non-Chinese manner was seen as filial impiety in Confucian tradition) in which tens of thousands of died. Possibly as a way to smooth things over, Emperor Shunzhi (1643-61) purged Dorgon's Manchu officials, stamped out corruption (including dealing with a mass cheating scandal in the civil service system), and revived the Chinese Confucian style of government which attracted a number of Han Chinese recruits. Although the use of eunuchs had been abolished under Dorgon, they were re-introduced as a way to counter the influence of Shunzhi's enemies at court (and brought with them all of those problems that eunuchs tended to bring). Shunzhi spent much of his reign pacifying those areas of Southern China which still had Ming sympathies as well as putting down rebellions such as that by a group of Muslims in Western China, and campaigning in Vietnam. Diplomatically, he seems to have enjoyed good relations with Mughal India as well as Tibet, and though he subscribed to the Buddhist religion, welcomed Jesuit missionaries to court and got on well with them (Jesuits were quite powerful at court, serving as advisers, astronomers, interpreters, mathematicians, and even weapons experts to the imperial government, but lost their influence to a degree because of infighting between Jesuit and Dominican missionaries, who disagreed over whether ancestral veneration was compatible with Christianity). The second emperor, Kangxi, was only 7 when he came to the throne, and was one of the longest reigning rulers ever (1661-1722). He is also considered one of China's greatest emperors, and he was a known workaholic. He gained popularity not only for engineering effective flood control of the Yellow River, but also made comprehensive repairs to the Grand Canal and did so while at the same time being able to cut taxes. His early reign still had to contend not only with Ming Loyalists in the south (there was a Great Clearance in 1662, in which the loyal population was evacuated from the southern coast solely so that the Manchu could exterminate any resistance movements there), but also with former allied generals, the "Three Feudatories," who had built up power bases in southern China who had then rebelled (Kangxi was able to use the Green Standard army to put down the rebellions, which were quashed by 1681). As far as expansion went, Kangxi campaigned in and conquered Tibet, Taiwan, and oversaw operations against Russian forces which ended in victory, as well as effectively annexing Mongolia. Consequently, Manchu China was the largest of all Chinese states in that civilization's entire history, and the emperor was known to make regular tours of his realm. Economically, China was prosperous, and by the middle of Kangxi's reign enjoyed the first real stability for a century. In order to court the support of Confucian scholars (some of whom were still loyal to the Ming), he commissioned one of the first "dictionaries" in existence. Despite courting their support, he had an alternate way of communication along with the "official state communication" that was known as the "Palace Memorial System," which allowed him to communicated directly with the officials of his provinces (the scholar bureaucrats had a bad habit of withholding information from the emperor as it suited them). As well as this, he ordered the publishing of a compilation of Tang poetry, invented a new Chinese calendar, and was the first Chinese emperor to play a western instrument (the Spinet, a type of harpsichord). During this time, it should be said that Chinese blue and white porcelain was a major industry at this time, and was especially sought after. While he was a Buddhist himself, he is known for issuing an edict of toleration of Christianity in China, in complete contrast with the policies of Tokugawa Japan. The only true mark against his reign was a short-lived conflict which involved the succession of his sons, but he nevertheless left China in a better state than when he became emperor.

*What is this new order? Made up of what referred to as Napoleon's Grand Empire, divided into three major parts: The French Empire, a series of dependent states and allied states. 1. French Empire, core of Grand Empire consists of enlarged France extending to Rhine in East, and included large amounts of Italy north of Rome. 2. Dependent states included areas N had indirect control of. Included Spain, Netherlands, Kingdom of Italy, Switzerland, Grand Duchy of Warsaw, Confederation of the Rhine (finally destroyed the HRE). Areas he did not rule directly ruled either by associates or even members of his own family. Brother Joseph installed as King of Spain (such is the decline of Spain they could not resist N's armies), while Jerome is King of new state of Westphalia. 3. Allied states consisted of countries defeated by N who are essentially forced into system, compelled for time to resist their former ally Great Britain, the one nut N can't crack largely because he doesn't have much of a navy. *Sees himself as hegemon of all states, where he sees various rulers of areas like Prussia, Austria merely as officers who implement his decrees. Demands obedience within his empire, in part because needed a common front a/g British nemesis (BIGGER EGO than ATG, C, Char combined). *Nevertheless, implements programs in his empire such as legal equality, economic freedom, religious toleration. Basically trying to destroy old order, and nobility and clergy in all of the lands ruled by N witness the loss of their privileges much in same way lost them in France. *Despite its origins, principles N introduces with these defeated countries becomes basis for liberal traditions emerging in those lands. So in many ways argued N was last, but probably most successful, of enlightened absolutists. *Upon conquering Spain, N envisioned recreating a French presence in North America by annexing a large swath of Spanish Territory in the middle of now U.S. New province of Louisiana would be supplied mainly through major French ports in now Haiti, BUT major revolt a/g French rule there by Toussaint L'Overture ensured Haiti's independence from France in 1803. Plans for empire in NA now screwed, managed to salvage the situation by sending his chief diplomat Talleyrand to the Americans, offering to sell land for $15M. *Thomas Jefferson, president at time, accepts and lands of U.S. more than doubles! Napoleon's empire while would like it to last forever has some problems! *Two major obstacles to his complete domination of Europe are the a) Resistance of Britain b) Forces of nationalism in lands conquered by Napoleon 1) Britain being an island and the naval masters of Europe, is almost completely invulnerable to attack. Although N contemplated an invasiono of England on a number of occasions and even built up his navy to facilitate this, could not get around the fact British are bad--- on the waves, and Admiral Nelson, who destroyed N's fleets in Egypt at the Battle of the Nile in 1798, again proved to outmaneuver N's naval forces at Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 (although Nelson lost life). So instead of persisting in trying to defwat the British Navy, sought to isolate Br mainly through creation of Continental System. *System attempted to prevent Br goods from reaching European Continent to weaken Br economically and curtail abilities to wage war. Continental System ultimately FAILS. a) Allied states which resent N and his effort tighten their economic policies for benefit of F, begin to cheat system/resist it, opening door for ultimate collaboration with Britian. b) British merely trade in E Mediterranean and Latin America to compensat for monies lost. Indeed by 1810, British overseas exports reaching record heights. 2) Also problems with growing nationalism in states he conquers. Nationalism had origins in French Rev., where newly made Fr citizens emphasized brotherhood and solidarity with e-other against other peoples. Nationalism's markers include unique cultural identity of people based on common language, religion, national symbols. *Nationalism allowed FR armies, and that of N, to balloon hundreds of thousands of men at a time. But... when N comes to countries and spreads rev. principles there, unwittingly creates a sense of nationalism among conquered peoples in their respective countries. *Fr allow nationalism to emerge in two ways a) They make selves the hated oppressors, thus allowing for patriotism and nationalism to be used as rallying point b) Fr showed the people of these conquered territories what a nation in arms can do. As a result, N's rule is popular in places like Italy, but NOT when N conquers Spain, and French troops are subject to unrelenting guerilla warfare where Spanish have the help of Br forces, mainly under General Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington) able to tie down Fr force of 200k men. *Other areas like Germany, embrace philosophical nationalism where it didn't previously exist, thank N for creating tradition that caused Germans to ultimately unite as one country by 1871. *Prussia which allied with N during time, sees they have to adapt in Prussia. Under rule of Baron Heinrich von Stein and Prince Karl von Hardenberg, during time serfdom is abolished in Pr, elections of city councils introduced, larger standing army created. Now people in Pr have reason to fight for their country, become more interested in seeing N go. *N in many ways author of his own destruction. Never at rest, always believed that he had to constantly fight war after war to bring everyone into submission. *Especially true by 1812, Russia leaves Continental System, and appears more of rival than ally to N. *N knows if Russia is allowed to leave the Continental System unopposed, others will follow suit. In 1812 he invades Russia, and by June he enters land with army of more than 600k men. Despite winning victory at Borodino in 1812 (killing 45k troops), days in Russia numbered. *Hoped to do what he did before (most coalition wars decided with one or two battles and enemy usually came to negotiating table). So hopes to win a couple of quick victories (knows Russian winter not his friend) before summer and fall will end. *BUT, Russians not engaging in open battle, rather retreating hundreds of miles deeper and further East into Russian lands. Torching own villages and countryside so N can't resupply. Heat and disease taking toll on N's Grand Armée and troops desert (bad because N so deep in Russia cannot get reinforcements). When N gets to Moscow, finds city set on fire by retreating Russians. N realizes he has to get back to safer territories, abandons Moscow in late October, making the Great Retreat across Russia in middle of winter. *Many troops froze to death or constantly subject to guerilla warfare from Russians and Cossacks, out of 600k men who go to Russia, 40k make it back to Fr controlled Poland in January 1813. *Almost overnight news of N's defeat cause mass resistance to his rule over Europe and countries rise in Revolt. British Army in Spain under Wellington manages to enter France by 1814, N defeated by April 1814. *NOT THE END of N! As a consolation, victorious powers of Eu allow him to be exiled to island of Elba in Mediterranean near Italy as its ruler after defeat. *WHO RULES? Louis XVI's brother, Louis XVIII comes to throne although little support initially being crowned. Napoleon, meanwhile, makes a daring escape from island and returns to Fr, intent on restorting imperial rule. *When troops sent to capture him, N states 'soldiers of the fifth regiment, I am your emperor. If there is a man among you who would kill his emperor, here I am!' Opening his coat to show his vulnerability, troops moved and instead of firing embrace him as emperor. From this, N creates base of support in which other Fr forces unenthusiastic about the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, go over to his side. *N enters Paris in triumph on March 20, 1815 again Emperor of France. LXVIII has to flee France once more. This time, European powers see N, and he's number one to go. Call him the Enemy and Disturber of the Tranquility of the World. Napoleon for his part hopes to strike first at his enemies in hopes quick victories would bring them all to the negotiating table. *Raises another army and moves to attack nearest allied forces located in Belgium, near a place called Waterloo. On June 18th, meets combined British-Prussian force, lead by Duke of Wellington and General Blücher of Prussia. Although N afterwards said he had fought this battle hundreds of times before, one time it mattered things got messed up, his forces suffer bloody defeat. *Time Napoleon not even allowed rule of a small island in the Med., rather exiled to St. Helena, living under house arrest and being guarded by Br officers. *Ceases to matter, when does receive visitors, more of a tourist attraction than someone worthy of respect. Doesn't live long after arriving, debate if the tropical climate didn't kill him off in 1821 at age of 56, may have been poison slipped into food by Br officers who wanted to kill off their prisoner so they could go home. Hotly debated memory in France, trouble maker vs. one who was promised, country not finished with Bonapartes yet.

What is this new order? Well, it's made up of what is referred to as Napoleon's Grand Empire, and is divided into three major parts: The French Empire, a series of dependent states, and allied states. The French Empire, the inner core of this Grand Empire, consists of an enlarged France extending to the Rhine in the East, and included large amounts of Italy north of Rome. Dependent states included areas that Napoleon had indirect control of. These included Spain, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Italy, Switzerland, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the Confederation of the Rhine (yes, Napoleon finally destroyed the Holy Roman Empire). The areas that Napoleon does not rule directly are ruled either by his associates, or even members of his own family. His brother Joseph, for example, is installed as King of Spain (such is the decline of Spain that they could not resist Napoleon's armies), while his brother Jerome is King of the new state of Westphalia. Allied States consist of those countries defeated by Napoleon who are essentially forced into the system, and they are compelled for a time to resist their former ally Great Britain, the one nut Napoleon can't crack, largely because he doesn't have much of a navy. Napoleon nevertheless sees himself as hegemon of all of these states, where he sees the various rulers of areas like Prussia and Austria as merely his officers who implement his decrees. Napoleon demands obedience within his empire, in part because he needed a common front against his British nemesis (also because the guy has an ego bigger than Alexander the Great, Caesar, and Charlemagne combined and then some). Nevertheless, Napoleon implements programs in his empire such as legal equality, economic freedom and religious toleration. So Napoleon is basically trying to destroy the old order, and nobility and clergy in all of the lands ruled by Napoleon witness the loss of their privileges much in the same way that they lost them in France. Despite its origins, the principles that Napoleon introduces with these defeated countries becomes the basis for liberal traditions emerging in those lands. So in many ways, it can be argued that Napoleon was the last, but probably the most successful, of the enlightened absolutists. It should be noted that, upon conquering Spain, Napoleon envisioned recreating a French presence in North America by annexing a large swath of Spanish Territory in the middle of what is now the United States. This new province of Louisiana would be supplied mainly through the major French ports in what's now Haiti. BUT, a major revolt against French rule there by Toussaint L'Overture ensured Haiti's independence from France in 1803. His plans for empire in North America now completely screwed, Napoleon managed to salvage the situation by sending his chief diplomat Talleyrand to the Americans, offering to sell the land for $15 million. Thomas Jefferson, president at the time, accepts, and as a result, the lands of the United States more than double. Napoleon's empire, while he would like it to last forever, has some problems. The two major obstacles to his complete domination of Europe are the resistance of Britain, as well as the forces of nationalism in the lands conquered by Napoleon. First, Britain, being an island and the naval masters of Europe, is almost completely invulnerable to attack. Although Napoleon contemplated an invasion of England on a number of occasions and even built up his navy to facilitate this, he could not get around the fact that the British are badasses on the waves, and Admiral Nelson, who destroyed Napoleon's fleets in Egypt at the Battle of the Nile in 1798, again proved to outmaneuver Napoleon's naval forces at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 (although Nelson lost his life in the process). So instead of persisting in trying to defeat the British Navy, Napoleon instead sought to isolate Britain mainly via the creation of his Continental System. This system attempted to prevent British goods from reaching the European Continent in order to weaken Britain economically and curtail their abilities to wage war. The Continental System, however, ultimately fails. Allied states, which resent Napoleon and his efforts to tighten their economic policies for the benefit of France, begin to cheat the system or resist it, thus opening the door for ultimate collaboration with Britain. Moreover, the British merely increase their trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Latin America in order to compensate for any monies lost during this time. Indeed, by 1810, British oversees exports are reaching record heights. Napoleon also has problems with growing nationalism in the states he conquers. Nationalism had its origins in the French Revolution, where the newly made French citizens emphasized brotherhood and solidarity with each other against other peoples. Nationalism's markers include the unique cultural identity of people based on a common language, religion, and national symbols. This nationalism allowed the French Revolutionary armies, as well as that of Napoleon, to balloon to hundreds of thousands of men at a time. But here's the thing. When Napoleon comes into countries and spreads revolutionary principles there, he unwittingly creates a sense of nationalism amongst the conquered peoples in their respective countries (ah, cruel irony!). The French allow nationalism to emerge in two ways: 1) they make themselves the hated oppressors, thus allowing for patriotism and nationalism to be used as a rallying point; 2) the French showed the people of these conquered territories what a nation in arms can do. As a result, while Napoleon's rule is popular in places like Italy, it is NOT popular when Napoleon conquers Spain, and French troops there are subject to unrelenting guerilla warfare, where the Spanish have the help of British forces, mainly under General Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington), are able to tie down a French force of 200,000 men. Other areas, such as Germany, embrace a philosophical nationalism where it did not previously exist, and you can thank Napoleon for creating a tradition that caused Germans to ultimately unite as one country by 1871. Prussia, which is 'allied' with Napoleon during this time, sees that they have to adapt in order to resist Napoleon, and proceed to embark on reforms meant to create a rival nationalism in Prussia. Under the rule of Baron Heinrich von Stein and Prince Karl von Hardenberg, it's during this time that serfdom is abolished in Prussia, elections of city councils are introduced, and a larger standing army is created. Now that people in Prussia have a reason to fight for their country, they become more interested in seeing Napoleon go. But Napoleon, in many ways, is the author of his own destruction. Never at rest, he always believed that he had to constantly fight war after war in order to bring everyone into submission. This is especially true when by 1812, Russia leaves the Continental system, and appears more to be a rival to Napoleon than an ally. Napoleon knows that if Russia is allowed to leave the Continental system unopposed, then others will follow suit and Napoleon's jig will be up. So in 1812 he invades Russia, and by June of that year he enters that land with an army of more than 600,000 men. Despite winning a major victory at Borodino in 1812 (killing 45,000 Russian troops in the process), Napoleon's days in Russia are numbered. He hoped to do what had been done before (i.e. most coalition wars were decided with one or two battles and the enemy usually came to the negotiating table). So he hopes to win a couple of quick victories (he knows the Russian winter is not his friend) before summer and fall end. But here's the thing. The Russians are not engaging in open battle, but rather retreating hundreds of miles deeper and deeper and further East into Russian lands. They're torching their own villages and countryside so Napoleon can't re-supply. Heat and disease are taking their toll on Napoleon's Grand Armee, and many troops desert (which is bad because Napoleon is so deep within Russia that he can't get reinforcements). When Napoleon gets to Moscow, he finds the city had been set on fire by the retreating Russians. Napoleon then realizes that he has to get back to safer territories, and abandons Moscow late in October, making the 'Great Retreat' across Russia in the middle of the winter. Ugh. Many troops freeze to death or are constantly subject to guerilla warfare from Russians and Cossacks, and out of the 600,000 men to go into Russia, only 40,000 men make it back to French controlled Poland in January 1813. Almost overnight, news of Napoleon's defeat causes mass resistance to his rule all over Europe and countries rise in Revolt. The British Army in Spain under Wellington manages to enter France by 1814, and Napoleon is defeated by April 1814. But this isn't the end of Napoleon. As a consolation, the victorious powers of Europe allow Napoleon to be exiled to the island of Elba in the Mediterranean near Italy as its ruler after his defeat. Who will rule France? Well, Louis XVI's brother, now Louis XVIII, comes to the throne, although he has little support upon initially being crowned. Napoleon, meanwhile, bored on Elba, makes a daring escape from the island and returns to France, intent on restoring imperial rule. When troops are sent to capture him, Napoleon states 'soldiers of the fifth regiment, I am your Emperor. If there is a man among you who would kill his emperor, here I am!' Opening his coat to show his vulnerability, the troops are moved and instead of firing a shot, embrace him as their emperor. From this, Napoleon creates a base for support in which other French forces, unenthusiastic about the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, go over to his side, and Napoleon enters Paris in triumph on March 20, 1815 once again emperor of France. Louis XVIII, probably thinking 'Mon Dieu! Here we go again! Merde Merde Merde!' has to flee France once more. This time, the European powers see Napoleon, and he's number one on all of their shit lists. They call him 'Enemy and Disturber of the Tranquility of the World.' Napoleon, for his part, hopes to strike first at his enemies in hopes that quick victories would bring them all to the negotiating table. He raises another army and moves to attack the nearest allied forces located in Belgium, near a place called Waterloo. On June 18th, he meets a combined British and Prussian force, led respectively by the Duke of Wellington and General Blücher of Prussia. Although Napoleon afterwards said that he had fought this battle hundreds of times before, the one time it mattered things got messed up, and his forces suffer a bloody defeat. This time, Napoleon is not allowed even a rule of a small island in the Mediterranean, but rather is exiled to a God-forsaken rock called St. Helena, living under house arrest and being guarded by British officers. Napoleon ceases to matter, and when he does receive visitors, he is more of a tourist attraction than someone worthy of respect. He does not live long after arriving on the island, and there is debate that if the tropical climate didn't kill him off in 1821 at the age of 56, then it may have been poison slipped into his food by the British officers who wanted to kill off their prisoner so that they could go home. Napoleon's memory persisted, however, and although it is hotly debated in France (many people in France see Napoleon as just a trouble maker, while others see him as THE ONE WHO WAS PROMISED), that country is not finished with Bonapartes just yet. But we'll end it there.

*German unification: After Frankfurt Assembly imploded, most nationalists looking at either Austria or Prussia as two powers that can dominate German affairs. *While Austria had dominated the German Confederation that existed, Prussia has grown in power enough to contend. It's doing things that make it look like the power that's more serious about uniting Germany. It forms the Zollverein, a customs union in 1834 that eliminated tolls on rivers and roads amongst member states, thus stimulating trade for members. By 1853, every state in Germany is a member except Austria which brings majority of German states closer to Prussia than Austria. In 1848, Prussia puts together constitution that has appearance of constitutional monarchy in that is has a bicameral legislature with lower house elected by universal male suffrage. The voting pop however is set up in which there are three classes of Prussian determined by amount of taxes one pays, system that allows biggest taxpayers to determine most seats. Control of this system falls largel in control of middle class, whose numbers have grown as result of industrialization. *While these people envision a parliamentary system for Prussia, ministers responsible to the king, whose executive power dominates country. Nevertheless the legislature has some power when it comes to lawmaking and taxation. So it seems Prussia is modernizing and giving more of voice to its people. *IS a downside to this. William I (1861-88) comes to throne and is a militaristic king. Believes if Prussia is to remain a great power, he needs to double the size of the army and introduce policy of compulsory military service for all male Prussians. *Runs into trouble with Parliament, because fear conscription will teach obedience to the monarchy, and that Prussians will be inculcated by conservative-military interests of Pr. When they attempt to stop by rejecting military budget in March 1862, William appoints new Prime Minister - Otto von Bismarck, to force it through. Now Otto is a really conservative guy, and even king thinks he goes too far: But it's Otto who dominates and determines course of modern German politics, and European politics until 1890. Who is Otto von Bismarck (1815-98)... *He's a Junker, loyal to aristocracy all his life. While at University, B into wine, women, song, German history. Earns law degree, embarks on career in Pr civil service, but gets tired of bureaucracy and the routine, and won't stay, largely as result of pride not allowing it. Indeed, he leaves his post to pursue two English girls in hope of marrying at least one, traveling as far as England to propose to each of them personally, but both turned him down. Uses his travels to cultivate a career in diplomacy, and serves as ambassdor to Russia and France, which helps him find out how things work in other countries, gives him chance to assess what rulers are like. *Bismarck is big on diplomacy, he used war more as a last resort than anything else. Follower of something called Realpolitik, which adhered to a policy of pragmatic politics: had a strong dislike for anyone who disagreed or opposed him. *Bismarck more about what it will take to practically unify Germany than paying attention to all of this warmed over nationalist/Englightenment crap (how he sees it), and in pushing William's army reforms through in Parliament, says Germany's unification will not be done via speeches, plebiscites, but 'By Blood and Iron!' When liberals in Parliament try to block him, he goes ahead, collects the taxes, builds the army, and then blames liberals in Parliament for causing the constitutional gov to break down. *So from 1862-6, Bismarck governs Prussia by ignoring Parliament. Parliament is too scared to do anything about it too. Bismarck spends time developing his foreign policy. And via this foreign policy he fights three wars that Prussia successively wins, culminating in unification of Germany: 1) The Danish War (1864) 2) The Austro-Prussian War (1866) 3) The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1) *Bismarck fights each of these powers mainly by first isolating them diplomatically and maneuvering them in a way they feel they have no choice but to fight Prussia. He does this first with Denmark, who wanted to incorporate provinces of Schleswig-Holstein into their kingdoms. Only problem is these places are largely German, and German nationalists there are appealing to both Prussia and German Confederation to keep Denmark from annexing these territories. Rather than go through the GC (Austrian dominated), Bismarck presents Pr as an equal to Au and appeals to them directly to work with Pr to declare war on Denmark, which happens in 1864 and ends in Danish defeat, with Prussia taking over Schleswig and Austria controlling Holstein. *Bismarck now has excuse to come into conflict with Austria, as many northern Protestant Germans don't like Catholic Austrians administering these largely Protestant lands. But B knows this and will proceed to isolate Au just as he did Denmark. *Bismarck has no problem going behind Au's back by asking Russia if they would intervene or stay neutral if he fought a war with Au. B good terms with Russians, as he hates Poles just like Russia (believed Poles should be shot down like wolves) and helped put down a revolt a/g Russian rule in Poland in 1863. Russia fine with staying neutral, and France's Napoleon III is bought off with promises of territory in the Rhineland. *As for new Italian state, stay nutral if they get the Austrian territory of Venetia. Bismarck isolates Au and declare war on it in June 1866. No one thought Pr culd win a war a/g Au (one of reasons that NIII agreed to stay neutral is he thought Au would get a quick victory). But Pr, with military discipline and new breech-loading needle gun as much faster rate of fire than muzzleloader that Au have, and large amount of Pr railroads means troops can be more quickly mobilize than in Au. *By July, Au had been defeated, but B is careful in victory. Rather than impose harsh peace, creating an enemy, B instead is conciliatory. Au loses no lands except Venetia to Italy and is excluded from the GC. The north German states that sided with Au in war are annexed by Bismarck, and southern, Catholic German states are coerced by B into allying with him, with aim of ultimate Pr annexation of them as well. *Bismarck uses these victories to bring Parliament over to his side, and retroactively legalize his taxation that had been illegally collected since 1862. Indeed nationalism that this inspires, B finds, works well with liberalism (much as in NIII's France), and B sees liberals aren't so much about reform when nationalism is in the mix so as long as B is winning victories, liberals on board. *B reorganizes the German states into a North German Confederation, in which each G state keeps its local gov but the King of Prussia is head of Confederation. This new confederation has a two house legislature: the Bundesrat (federal council that is composed of delegates nominated by the states) and the Reichstag (lower house elected via universal male suffrage). *Prussia by 1866 now dominated all of northern Germany, and has monopoly on German affairs thanks to Austria's defeat. But B knows he has to fight one last war to unify G. He knows that France will never be content with a strong German state for security reasons. *But he knows Fr can be manipulated, largely because of recent setbacks that NIII has faced (debacle with Maximilian in Mexico being most recent). NIII looking for diplomatic victory at least to save face, and is looking to somehow humiliate Prussians in such a way. *Comes to head when successful revolution in Spain deposed Queen Isabella II. Spanish looking for more constitutional monarch, offers throne to distant relative of William I. Bismarck welcomes idea, but French don't. NIII doesn't like the ideas of members of the Hohenzollern dynasty surrounding France on all sides, demands William compel his relative to withdraw his candidacy for the throne of Spain, which is done. *But French overreach, as they want a formal apology from William, and a promise that he will never again be considered a candidate for the Spanish throne. When Bismarck receives telegram from NIII at Ems, informing him of Fr demands, B sees as opportunity to provoke the Fr. *Knowing Fr are emotional and prone to make stupid decisions, B correctly predicts that the Fr will declare war as consequence, which France does in July 1870. Fr predicts it will easily win the Franco-Prussian War. *This is FRANCE, prove no match. Not only are Prussians better led and better organized, they have help from various German states they are allied with a/g French. Moreover, Prussians do the invading, and proceed to go into F, meeting Fr forces led personally by Napoleon III at Sedan in September 1870. Fr completely disorganized, said that the army was so hastily assembled that the ammunition, in many cases, proved to be wrong type for Fr arms used at the battle (isn't good, Pr heavily armed). Pr completely encircle and capture Fr army including NIII. As result, Second French Empire collapses after 18 year run (NIII forced to be photographed with victorious Bismarck, flees in exile to England where he dies in 1873). *Paris is catured in January 1871, and is faced with very harsh peace. France has to pay 5 million francs to Pr, and has to give up its provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussians. Have to witness the declaration of the new German Empire, which is done at the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles. *German unification has been achieved not by liberals but by conservative, militaristic interests willing to swing between nationalism and liberalism to suit their progres. Germany is largely unified because of Prussia, and it is the most powerful state in Continental Europe at this time.

Which leads us to German unification. After that Frankfurt Assembly imploded, most nationalists are looking at either Austria or Prussia as the two powers that can dominate German affairs. While Austria had dominated the German Confederation that existed at the time, Prussia has grown in power enough to contend with Austria. Moreover, it's doing things that make it look like the power that's more serious about uniting Germany. It forms the Zollverein, a customs union in 1834 that eliminated tolls on rivers and roads amongst member states, thus stimulating trade for its members. By 1853, every state in Germany is a member except Austria, which brings the majority of the German states closer to Prussia than Austria. In 1848, Prussia puts together a constitution that has the appearance of a constitutional monarchy in that it has a bicameral legislature with the lower house elected by universal male suffrage. The voting population, however, is set up in which there are three classes of Prussian determined by the amount of taxes one pays, a system that allows the biggest taxpayers to determine the most seats. So as a result, control of this system falls largely into the control of the middle class, whose numbers have grown as a result of industrialization. While these people envision a parliamentary system for Prussia, ministers are responsible to the king, whose executive power dominates the country. Nevertheless, the legislature has some power when it comes to lawmaking and taxation. So it seems that Prussia is modernizing and giving more of a voice to its people. However, there is a downside to all of this. William I (1861-1888) comes to the throne, and is a militaristic king. He believes that if Prussia is to remain a great power, he needs to double the size of the army and introduce a policy of compulsory military service for all male Prussians. This runs into trouble with Parliament, because they fear conscription will teach obedience to the monarchy, and that Prussians will be inculcated by the conservative-military interests in Prussia. When they attempt to stop it by rejecting the military budget in March 1862, William appoints a new Prime Minister, Otto von Bismarck, to force it through. Now, Otto is a REALLY conservative guy, and even the king thinks he goes too far in this respect. But in any case, it's Otto who dominates and determines the course of modern German politics, as well as European politics, until 1890. Who is Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898)? Well, he's a Junker, and is loyal to the aristocracy all his life. While at University, Bismarck was a bit of a party animal and was into wine, women, song, and German history. He earns a law degree, and embarks on a career in the Prussian civil service, but gets tired of the bureaucracy and the routine, and won't stay with them, largely as a result of his pride not allowing it. Indeed, he leaves his post to pursue two English girls in the hopes of marrying at least one of them, traveling as far as England to propose to each of them personally (btw, this wasn't simultaneous), but they both respectively turn him down. In any case, he uses his travels to cultivate a career in diplomacy, and he serves as ambassador to Russia and France, which helps him to find out how things work in other countries, as well as gives him a chance to assess what rulers are like. Bismarck is big on diplomacy, so it should be noted that he used war more as a last resort than anything else. He is a follower of something called Realpolitik, which adhered to a policy of 'pragmatic politics.' That being said, he had a strong dislike for anyone who disagreed with him or opposed him. Bismarck, indeed, is more about what it will take to practically unify Germany than paying attention to all of this warmed over nationalist/Enlightenment crap (this is how he sees it, anyway), and in pushing William's army reforms through in Parliament, says that Germany's unification will not be done via speeches, plebiscites, etc. but by 'Blood and Iron!' When liberals in Parliament try to block him, he merely goes ahead, collects the taxes, builds the army, and then blames liberals in Parliament for causing the constitutional government to break down (gee, sounds like a lot of modern politicians these days). So from 1862-66, Bismarck governs Prussia by ignoring Parliament. As he's a badass, Parliament's too scared to do anything about it. Bismarck, in any case, spends the time developing his foreign policy. And via this foreign policy, Bismarck fights three wars that Prussia successively wins, culminating in the unification of Germany: The Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). Bismarck fights each of these powers mainly by first isolating them diplomatically and maneuvering them in such a way was they feel they have no choice but to fight Prussia. He does this first with Denmark, who wanted to incorporate the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein into their kingdoms. Only problem is that these places are largely German, and German nationalists there are appealing to both Prussia and the German Confederation to keep Denmark from annexing these territories. Rather than go through the German Confederation (Austrian dominated as it is), Bismarck presents Prussia as an equal to Austria and appeals to them directly to work with Prussia to declare war on Denmark, which happens in 1864 and ends in a Danish defeat, with Prussia taking over Schleswig and Austria controlling Holstein. Bismarck now has an excuse to come into conflict with Austria, as many northern Protestant Germans don't like Catholic Austrians administering these largely Protestant lands. But Bismarck knows this, and will proceed to isolate Austria just as he did Denmark. Indeed, Bismarck has no problem going behind Austria's back by asking Russia if they would intervene or stay neutral if he fought a war with Austria. Bismarck is on good terms with the Russians, as he hates Poles just like Russia (he believed that Poles should be shot down 'like wolves') and helped put down a revolt against Russian rule in Poland in 1863. Russia is fine with staying neutral should it come to that, and France's Napoleon III is bought off with promises of territory in the Rhineland. As for the new Italian state, it will stay neutral if they get the Austrian territory of Venetia. So Bismarck proceeds to isolate Austria and declare war on it in June 1866. Here's the thing: no one thought that Prussia would win a war against Austria (one of the reasons that Napoleon III agreed to stay neutral is that he thought the Austrians would get a quick victory). But the Prussians, with their military discipline and their new, breech-loading needle gun as a much faster rate of fire than the muzzleloader that the Austrians have, and the large amount of Prussian railroads means that troops can be more quickly mobilized than in Austria. By July, Austria has been defeated, but Bismarck is careful in victory. Rather than imposing a harsh peace on them, thus creating an enemy, Bismarck instead is conciliatory. Austria loses no lands except Venetia to Italy and is excluded from the German Confederation. The north German states that sided with Austria in the war are annexed by Bismarck, and the southern, Catholic German states are coerced by Bismarck into allying with him, with the aim of ultimate Prussian annexation of them as well. Bismarck uses these victories to bring Parliament over to his side, and they retroactively legalize his taxation that had been illegally collected since 1862. Indeed, the nationalism that this inspires, Bismarck finds, works well with liberalism (much as in Napoleon III's France), and Bismarck sees that liberals aren't so much about reform when nationalism is in the mix, so as long as Bismarck is winning victories, the liberals are on board. Bismarck reorganizes the German states into a North German Confederation , in which each German state keeps its local government, but the King of Prussia is head of the Confederation. This new confederation has a two house legislature: the Bundesrat (or federal council that is composed of delegates nominated by the states) and the Reichstag, which is the lower house elected via universal male suffrage. Prussia by 1866 now dominated all of northern Germany, and has a monopoly on German affairs thanks to Austria's defeat. But Bismarck knows he has to fight one last war in order to unify Germany. He knows that France will never be content with a strong German state for security reasons. But he knows that France can be manipulated, largely because of recent setbacks that Napoleon III has faced (the debacle with Maximilian in Mexico being the most recent). Napoleon III is looking for a diplomatic victory at least to save face, and he is looking to somehow humiliate the Prussians in such a way. This comes to a head when a successful revolution in Spain deposed Queen Isabella II. The Spanish, looking for a more constitutionalist monarch, offers the throne to a distant relative of William I. Bismarck welcomes this idea, but the French don't. Napoleon III doesn't like the idea of members of the Hohenzollern dynasty surrounding France on all sides, and he demands that William compel his relative to withdraw his candidacy for the throne of Spain, which is done. But the French overreach, as they want a formal apology from William, as well as a promise that he will never again be considered a candidate for the Spanish throne. When Bismarck receives a telegram from Napoleon III at Ems, informing him of French demands, Bismarck sees an opportunity to provoke the French. He takes the telegram, and edits it as to make it look like King William insulted the French. Knowing that the French are emotional and thus prone to making stupid decisions, Bismarck correctly predicts that the French will declare war as a consequence, which France does in July 1870. France predicts it will easily win the Franco-Prussian War. But this is France we're talking about, and they prove no match. Not only are the Prussians better led and better organized, they have help from the various German states they are allied with against the French. Moreover, the Prussians do the invading, and proceed to go into France, meeting the French forces led personally by Napoleon III at Sedan in September 1870. The French are completely disorganized, and it is said that the army was so hastily assembled that the ammunition, in many cases, proved to be the wrong type for French arms used at the battle (which isn't good, as the Prussians are HEAVILY ARMED). The Prussians completely encircle and capture the French army, including Napoleon III. As a result the Second French Empire collapses after an 18 year run (Napoleon III, forced to be photographed with a victorious Bismarck, flees in exile to England where he dies in 1873). Paris is captured in January 1871, and is faced with a VERY harsh peace. France has to pay about 5 billion francs to Prussia, and has to give up its provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to the Prussians. Moreover, they have to witness the declaration of the new German Empire, which is done at the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles. German unification has been achieved not by liberals, but by conservative, militaristic interests willing to swing between nationalism and liberalism to suit their purposes. Germany is largely unified because of Prussia, and it is the most powerful state in Continental Europe at this time. But that's all we have for today.

*While the British were unable to thwart the Principle of Intervention when it came to Spain and Italy, managed to do so when it came to the Continental powers attempting to interfere in Latin America, where Revolutions had been brewing since 1807. This leads to end of Portuguese and Spanish domination of C and S America. How does this happen? *During the 18th century, Enlightenment ideals that are coming out of the Revolution in America and that in France are filtering down to the creole elites in Spanish America, like the idea of things like free trade - freedom of speech - equality under law. *Especially evident in two individuals who later become main leaders of the independence movement in South America: 1) Simon Bolivar (1783-1830) 2) Jose de San Martin (1778-1850), both of whom educated at Eu universities and big fans of the Enl. But part of a larger Latin American Elite that is sick of the domination of their trade by both S and P, and increadingly lethargic Eu rule. *When Napoleon does things like take land away from S in America, and invade Spain in 1808, S is weakened and P has to depend British protection to keep from being conquered. So weakening these countries caused their authority to be weakened in their respective American territories, and revolts a/g Eu rule ensue between 1807-1824. *Revolts enable most of Latin America to become independent. Bolivar, considered to be the 'George Washington of the South American Independence movement' responsible for the independence of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru and by 1819 president of a federation (Gran Colombia) which includes Colombia and Ecuador. *Bolivar would like to see a 'United States of South America' however never realized. *San Martin responsible for the independence of Chile and Argentina. Both SM and B set on getting rid of ALL S colonies in SA, believe to leave S a foothold would allow them to try and retake power at later date. *By 12/1824, last major Spanish army defeated at Battle of Ayacucho. By then MX, independent since 1821 (first having an emperor but then forming republic) and most of CA countries independent (G, ES, CR, N, H), forming republican govs in the late 1830s. *Brazil for its part declared independence from P in 1822, when prince regent of country decided to throw off Eu rule. *Now the Continental Eu powers, who are fresh off crushing revolutionary movements in S and I are set on sending forces over to C and SA to re-instate S and P rule there. But, Britain isn't hot on this partly because independence of these countries means more trading markets are opening up for them where before trade was solely between those colonies and the respective Eu countries which controlled them. So don't want the status quo in the Americas, willing to use their navy to frustrate any return to colonial rule. *Also the United States and B get together to state the Eu intervention will not be allowed in the Americas. President James Monroe acts alone and issues the Monroe Doctrine, states they will guarantee the independence of any of these new countries, and that Eu intervention in these regions will be opposed by the US; diplomatically, militarily, etc. Isn't taken very seriously when first comes out (Eu kept away from the Americas more by threat of Br ships than M's declaration) but sets precedent for how the US will act to its neighbors in C and SA. Real winner in the independence movement was Britain - dominated trade of C and SA - importing raw materials that could be manufactured in B. So though Eu no longer politically dominate C/SA dominate it economically. *Principle of Intervention is laid out by Metternich, while designed to prevent revolution could be used to encourage it when the revolution was considered by the continental powers to be beneficial to them. *In 1821, Greeks had been in Ottoman Empire for 4-500 years - despite being allowed to keep language + Orthodox Christian faith nevertheless treated by Turks as second class citizens and undergone degree of harassment. By 1821 had enough of Turks and rise up in rebellion with aim of achieving independence. *Eu who have been raised in a classical education (all politicians versed in Greek Civilizations and works like Illiad, Odyssey) always sympathetic to their plight, and when revolt occurs Eu in west advertise it as noble cause to be fully supported (people like Lord Byron going to help the cause, though drops dead from syphillis before). *By 1827, combined British-French fleet sails to Greece and defeats Turkish armada to frustrate Ottoman efforts to restore their rule in Greece. *1828, Russia comes in and starts launching attacks a/g Turks to divert them from their efforts to put down revolts in Greece (Wallachia, Moldavia). *In 1829, Tready of Adrianople ends war b/t Russians and Turks - allows R, F, B to decide fate of Greece. In 1830 declare Greece an independent kingdom with newly established royal dynasty *BUT Greeks only successful because great powers following principle of intervention allowed it to be successful. *Conservatism still dominates Eu! The conservatism that dominates diplomacy in Eu during time evident within the domestic politics of those respective countries, between 1815-30. Everyone's working to maintain the old order. 1) Britain: Government effectively run by the aristocratic landowning classes that tend to dominate both Houses of Parliament. *Increasingly out of sync with developments in British Society, especially with emergence of Industrial Revolution. Representation as a result is unequal, while you have growing industrial cities like Manchester and B-ham with no representation whatsoever, still have same system of landowners using pocket and rotten boroughs to maintain control of the gov, especially in House of Commons. *Monarch not necessarily powerless at the time, and has a lot of influence, but policy usually in hands of the ruling party in Parliament, whether Tories or Whigs. *Both parties dominated the landed classes, though Whigs do have supporters from new middle class that emerges due to IR. *That said Tory ministers tend to dominate government until 1830 and don't wish to change the existing political or electoral system. This is a problem because lot of economic discontent in B after 1815, agricultural prices are falling and landowners are making less money. *Tory government responds by passing the Corn Law of 1815, imposing huge tariffs on foreign grain. Although landowners are making money, ordinary people are screwed because price of bread has been artificially raised. *Results in mass protests by working classes, and things take turn for nasty when at St. Peter's Fields in Manchester, 1819, 60k people demonstrating a/g the Corn Law attacked by squadron of B cavalry to disperse the protestors. 11 killed, Peterloo Massacre. Gov takes more oppressive measures after event, restricting large public meetings and distribution of pamphlets among poor. Tories do try to issue some token reforms, but only serve to prevent them from issuing electoral reforms until 1830.

Which leads us to the end of Portuguese and Spanish domination of Central and South America. How did this happen? Well, during the 18th century, the Enlightenment ideals that are coming out of the Revolution in America and that in France are filtering down to the creole elites in Spanish America, and they like the ideas of things like free trade, freedom of speech, equality under the law, etc. This is especially evident in the two individuals who later become the main leaders of the independence movement in South America, Simon Bolivar (1783-1830) and Jose de San Martin (1778-1850), both of whom were educated at European Universities and were big fans of the Enlightenment. But they're part of a larger Latin American Elite that is sick of the domination of their trade by both Spain and Portugal, as well as the increasingly lethargic European rule. When Napoleon does things like take land away from the Spanish in America, as well as invade Spain in 1808, Spain is weakened, and Portugal has to depend on British protection to keep from being conquered. So as a result of the weakening of these countries, their authority is weakened in their respective American territories, and revolts against European rule ensue between 1807 and 1824. These revolts enable most of Latin America to become independent. Bolivar, considered to be the George Washington of the South American Independence movement, is responsible for the independence of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay and Peru, and by 1819, he is president of a federation (Gran Colombia) which includes Colombia and Ecuador. Bolivar would like to see a 'United States of South America,' however this is never realized. San Martin is responsible mainly for the independence of Chile and Argentina. Both San Martin and Bolivar are set on getting rid of ALL Spanish colonies in South America, as they believe to leave Spain a foothold would allow them to try to retake power at a later date. By December 1824, the last major Spanish army is defeated at the battle of Ayacucho. By then, Mexico has been independent since 1821 (at first having an emperor but then forming a republic), and most of the Central American countries are independent as well (Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras), forming republican governments in the late 1830s. Brazil, for its part, declared independence from Portugal in 1822, when the prince regent of that country decided to throw off European rule. Now, the Continental European powers, who are fresh off crushing revolutionary movements in Spain and Italy, are set on sending forces over to Central and South America to re-instate Spanish and Portuguese rule there. However, remember Great Britain? It's not hot on this, partly because the independence of these countries mean that more trading markets are opening up for them where before trade was solely between those colonies and the respective European countries which controlled them. So they DON'T want the status quo in the Americas, and are willing to use their navy to frustrate any sort of return to colonial rule. Moreover, the United States, which is increasingly acting in a manner independent of Europe, makes noise that they don't want this happening either. So the U.S. and Britain get together (astonishing considering that the two were killing each other's soldiers in the war of 1812 only a few years previously) to state that European intervention will not be allowed in the Americas. To back this up, President James Monroe acts alone and issues the Monroe Doctrine, which states that they will guarantee the independence of any of these new countries, and that European intervention in these regions will be opposed by the U.S., diplomatically, militarily, or otherwise. Now, this isn't taken very seriously when it first comes out (in any case, the Europeans were kept away from the Americas more by the threat of British ships than by Monroe's declaration), but it sets a precedent for how the U.S. will act towards its neighbors in Central and South America. In any case, the real winner in the independence movement was Britain, who now dominated the trade of Central and South America, importing raw materials that could be manufactured over in Britain. So although Europeans no longer politically dominate Central and South America, they dominate it economically. Now, the principle of intervention as laid out by Metternich, while it was designed to prevent revolution, could also be used to encourage it when the revolution in question was considered by the continental powers to be beneficial to them in some way. For example, in 1821, the Greeks have been in the Ottoman empire for about 400-500 years. The Greeks, despite being allowed to keep their language and their Orthodox Christian faith, are nevertheless treated by the Turks as second class citizens and have undergone a large degree of harassment. So by 1821, they've had enough of the Turks and rise up in rebellion with the aim of achieving independence. Now, the Europeans, who have been raised in a classical education (at the time, all politicians were well versed in Greek Civilization as well as works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey) have always been sympathetic to their plight, and when the revolt occurs, the Europeans in the west advertise it as a noble cause to be fully supported (and you have people like Lord Byron going over to help in the cause, although he drops dead from syphilis before he can fight). So by 1827, a combined British/French fleet sails to Greece and defeats a Turkish armada to frustrate Ottoman efforts to restore their rule in Greece. In 1828, Russia comes in and starts launching attacks against the Turks as a way of diverting them from their efforts to put down the revolt in Greece (they come into Wallachia and Moldavia to cause a diversion). So in 1829, the Treaty of Adrianople ends the war between the Russians and the Turks, and allows Russia, France and Britain to decide the fate of Greece. So it comes as no surprise when in 1830, they declare Greece an independent kingdom with a newly established royal dynasty. But the thing is, the Greeks are only successful because the great powers, following the principle of intervention, allowed it to be successful. Conservatism still dominates Europe. The conservatism that dominates diplomacy in Europe during this time is evident within the domestic politics of those respective countries, between 1815 and 1830. Everyone's working to maintain the old order. In Britain, for example, the government is effectively run by the aristocratic landowning classes that tend to dominate both houses of Parliament. Now, this is becoming increasingly out of sync with the developments in British Society, especially with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution which we'll discuss another day. Representation as a result is unequal, for while you have growing industrial cities like Manchester and Birmingham having no representation whatsoever, you still have the same system of landowners using pocket and rotten boroughs to maintain control of the government, especially in the House of Commons. Now, the monarch isn't necessarily powerless by this time, and has A LOT of influence, but policy is usually in the hands of the ruling party in Parliament, whether they be Tories or Whigs. Now, both of these parties are dominated by the landed classes, although the Whigs do have supporters from the new middle class that emerges as a result of the Industrial Revolution. That being said, Tory ministers (later the Conservative Party of England) tend to dominate the government until 1830 and do not wish to change the existing political or electoral system. This is a problem, because there's a lot of economic discontent in Britain after 1815, when agricultural prices start falling and landowners are making less money. The Tory government responds to this by passing the Corn Law of 1815, which imposes HUGE tariffs on foreign grain. Although the landowners are once again making money as a result of these tariffs, ordinary people are screwed over because the price of bread has been artificially raised. This results in mass protests by your working classes, and things take a turn for the nasty when, at St. Peter's Fields in Manchester in 1819, 60,000 people demonstrating against the Corn Law are attacked by a squadron of British cavalry desiring to disperse the protesters. 11 people are killed in what is called the 'Peterloo Massacre,' by the critics of the government. The government takes even more oppressive measures after this event, restricting large public meetings and the distribution of pamphlets among the poor. The Tories do try to issue some token reforms, which really only serves to prevent them from issuing electoral reforms until 1830.