Director : Professor Harsh Gandhar

Coordinator : Professor Sheena Pall

Course Leader : Professor Sheena Pall

B.A. Semester V
World History 1500-1870 AD
Contents
• Introductory Letter i
• Syllabus ii
L. No. Topic Writer Pages
1. World Around 1500: Feudalism, Feature Dr. Ashish Kumar 1
and its decline, Rise of Mercantilism and
is impact
2. Politico-Religious Changes: Renaissance; Dr. Ashish Kumar 12
Reformation; Rise of absolute States in
France and Prussia, Rise of
Parliamentary Government: The Glorious
Revolution and its effects
3. The American Revolution: Social, Dr. Ashish Kumar 23
Political and Economic Causes and Its
Consequences
4. The French Revolution 1789: Causes and Dr. Ashish Kumar 34
Impact; Napoleon Bonaparte: Reform and
his continental system.
5. Congress of Vienna: Motives, Working, Dr. Ashish Kumar 46
Principles, Provisions and Significance
6. Industrial Revolution (1750-1850); Dr. Ashish Kumar 57
Causes for its origin in England; New
inventions; Impact on society and its
spread to Europe. Eastern Question:
Greek War of Independence; Mehmet Ali
and Egypt; Crimean War
7. Unification of Italy: Different stages in Dr. Ashish Kumar 68
unification of Italy; Role of Mazzini,

1
 Cavour and Garibaldi

8. Unification of Germany: Rise of Dr. Ashish Kumar 79

Nationalism and Role of Bismarck in the
Unification of Germany
9. Historical maps Dr. Ashish Kumar 90

Vetter: Prof. Sheena Pall

E-Mail of Department - coordhist@pu.ac.in

Phone number of Department - 0172-2534329

2
 Introductory Letter

World History 1500-1870 AD

The history of the modern world is shaped by the various political, socio-cultural,
economic and technological developments that have had taken place in different parts
of the world including Western Europe between 1500 and 1870. The feudalism
followed by the age of Renaissance and Reformation provided a strong agrarian
foundation to the European nations and in the age of enlightenment, when new
ideas/approaches such as reason, humanism and scientific temper were formulated,
the Europeans began exploring the world. Resultantly, trade networks developed that
connected Europe to Africa, Asia and America. Industrial revolution changed the
outlook of England and subsequently it gave birth to an intense political conflict
among European powers on the one hand and on the other hand, it turned major
parts of Africa, Asia and America into European colonies. French Revolution gave the
idea of liberty and equality to the world, and inaugurated an era of Napoleonic Wars in
Europe. In America, the war of independence between the patriots and the British
forces resulted in American Revolution and it led to the establishment of America as
an independent nation towards the end of the 18 th century. The idea of ‘nation’ caught
the imagination of European population in the 19th century and the fervour of
nationalism prepared the ground for the unification of Germany and Italy by the third
quarter of the 19th century. All these developments in the western world shaped the
destiny of India in the 19th and the 20th century. Without understanding these
developments, it’s not possible to understand the colonial rule in India and the nature
of India’s freedom struggle that acquainted the Indian masses with the ideals of
liberty, equality and freedom.

Department of History, CDOE

Panjab University, Chandigarh

3
 SYLLABUS
HISTORY S
EMESTER- V
PAPER: WORLD HISTORY 1500-1870 A.D.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER –SETTER AND CANDIDATES:

1. The syllabus has been divided into four Units.
There shall be 9 questions in all. The first question is compulsory and shall be
short answer type containing 15 short questions spread over the whole syllabus
to be answered in about 25 to 30 words each. The candidates are required to
attempt any 9 short answer type questions carrying 18 marks i.e. 2 marks of
each. Rest of the paper shall contain 4 units. Each Unit shall have two essay
type questions and the candidate shall be given internal choice of attempting
one question from each Unit and 4 questions in all. Each question will carry 18
marks.
2. For private candidates, who have not been assessed earlier for internal
assessment, the marks secured by them in theory paper will proportionately be
increased to maximum marks of the paper in lieu of internal assessment. The
paper-setter must put note (2) in the question paper. 3. One question from Unit-
IV shall be set on the map.
Explanation:
1. Each essay type question would cover about one-third or one-half of a topic
detailed in the syllabus.
2. The distribution of marks for the map question would be as under:
Map : 10 Marks
Explanatory Note : 08 Marks
3. In case, a paper setter chooses to set a question on important historical places,
the paper setter will be required to ask the students to mark 05 places on map
of 02 mark each and write explanatory note on any 04 of 02 marks each.
4. The paper-setter would avoid repetition between different types of question
within one question paper.

Max. Marks : 100

Theory : 90
Internal Assessment : 10

4
 Time : 3 Hours
Objectives: To introduce the students to the history of the Modern World.
Pedagogy: Lectures, library work and discussions.
Unit-I
1. World Around 1500: Feudalism, features and its decline, Rise of
Mercantilism and its impact.
2. Politico-Religious Changes: Renaissance; Reformation; Rise of absolute
states in France and Prussia
3. Rise of Parliamentary Government: The Glorious Revolution and its effects.
Unit-II
4. The American Revolution: Its social, political and economic causes; its
consequences.
5. The French Revolution 1789: Causes and impact.
6. Napoleon Bonaparte: Reforms and his continental system.
Unit-III
7. Congress of Vienna 1815: Motives, working, principles, provisions and
significance.
8. The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850); causes for its origins in England;
New inventions; spread to Europe; impact on society.
9. Eastern Question: Greek War of Independence; Mehmet Ali and Egypt;
Crimean War.
Unit-IV
10. Unification of Italy: Different stages in unification of Italy; role of Mazzini,
Cavour and Garibaldi.
11. Unification of Germany: Rise of Nationalism and role of Bismarck in the
unification of Germany.
12. Map:
(a) Important Historical Places - Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Frankfurt,
Vienna, Waterloo, Moscow, New York, Crimea, Trafalgar, Venice, Bonn
and Budapest.
(b) Unification of Germany.
(c) Unification of Italy.
Reading List:

5
 Davis, H.A., An Outline History of the World, OUP, 1964, 4th Edition.
 Davies, Norman, Europe: A History, Oxford University Press, 1996.
 Fisher, H.A.L, A History of Europe (From Beginning of the 18th century to
1937), Anrold & Co., 1935.
 Garraty John A. & Peter Gay (ed.),The University History of the World, United
Kingdom, New Orchard Edition, 1985.
 Grant and Temperley, Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 1789-
1950 (6th edition), Harlow: Longman, 1952.
 Gupta, P.S., Adhunik Paschim Ka Uday, Hindi Madhyam Karanvaya
Nideshalaya, Dilli :Dilli Vishavidhalaya, 1997 (Hindi Medium).
 Gupta, P.S., Europe KaItihas, Hindi Madhyam Karanvaya Nideshalaya, Dilli
:Dilli Vishavidhalaya, 1996 (Hindi Medium).
 Hayes, C. J. H, Modern Europe to 1870, New York: The Macmillan &Co., 1939.
 Hazen, C. D., Modern European History, New York,: Henry Holt and Company,
1917.
 Hinsley, F.H. (ed.), Material Progress and World Wide Problems, 1870-1898,
Cambridge University Press, 1976.
 Ketelbey, C.D.M, A History of Modern Times from 1789, London: George G
Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1937.
 Lipson, E., Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries 1815-1939, Adam & Charles
Black, 1962.
 Mason, David S., A Concise History of Modern Europe, New Delhi: Orient
Blackswan, 2012.
 Merriman, J., A History of Modern Europe, N.W. Norton Company, 2009.
 Stavrianos, L.S., The World Since 1500, Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, 1965.
 Thomson, David, Europe since Napoleon, London: Penguin Books, 1990.

6
 Chapter 1

WORLD AROUND 1500: FEUDALISM, FEATURE

AND ITS DECLINE, RISE OF MERCANTILISM
AND IS IMPACT

Structure
1.0. Objectives
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Origin of Feudalism
1.3. Features of Feudalism
1.4. Decline of Feudalism
1.5. Rise of Mercantilism
1.6. Impact of Mercantilism
1.7. Summary
1.8. References
1.9. Further Readings
1.10. Model Questions
1.0. OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the nature feudalism.
 Acquire information about the features and decline of feudalism.
 Gain knowledge regarding Mercantilism.
 Understand how feudalism and Mercantilism impacted the European nations.
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The English term “feudalism” has been derived from fief. Other contemporary
synonyms of the term fief are Feudum, benefice and Lehn that refer to a grant made
on condition of (military) services to the lord whenever required. Different scholars
have interpreted differently the nature of feudalism. Where some scholars associate it
with purely military services, others with economic or social obligations required to be
fulfilled by the vassals. Scholars who support military character of feudalism lay great
emphasis upon the military obligations of the vassals in return of the Fief (landed
property) granted to them by their lord. In this way feudal social structure was
essentially based on military services. But the problem with this argument is that it
narrow downs the scope of historical studies to only one specific aspect of feudalism
7
i.e. military services. Thereby, it leaves out a vast area of socio-economic relations
which were gradually interwoven in the course of time to the system created under
military obligations. Karl Marx describes feudalism in terms of social hierarchy and
exploitation. The peasantry in feudal mode of production was exploited by the
landowning aristocracy through the appropriation of surplus beyond subsistence of
peasantry in the form of rents and other dues. Rodeny Hilton emphasises the rural
and agrarian character of the feudal mode of production in which peasant family and
village community played a crucial role. Hilton argues that “…it was the product of
peasant economy, or rather that part of the product which the peasant household
was not able to retain within the household (whether in labour, kind or cash), which
provided the necessary support for the whole social and political structure of nobles,
clergy, town and state.” Perry Anderson on the other hand characterizes the feudal
mode of production as dominated by land and natural economy in which the specific
social, political and legal relations bind the producer (i.e. peasant) to the means of
production (i.e. soil). Hence, neither labour nor produce of peasantry were considered
commodities bought and sold in open markets.
1.2. ORIGIN OF FEUDALISM
There were variations in the form of feudalism in different parts of Europe. France
under Frankish rulers, England under Anglo-Saxons, and Italy under Lombards
experienced different forms of feudal relations. Hence, it was not a homogenous
system prevailing across Europe with a single form and character. Where the classical
form of feudalism developed in France under the Carolingian Empire, in Italy the form
of feudalism was dominated by the legacy of Roman antiquity. Contrary to them
England as it had never been under the direct Roman rule, experienced a slow
transition towards feudalism. Historically, feudalism developed as early as the 8th AD
century under the Carolingian dynasty and it emerged at large scale in Europe by the
10th century AD. The top players in feudal Europe came from a small group of people
- an aristocracy, based on skill in battle, with a shared commitment to a form of
Christianity in which the pope in Rome has special powers as God's representative on
earth. As a great feudal lord with moral pretensions, holding the ring between secular
sovereigns, the pope can be seen as Europe's headmaster. Bishops and abbots are
part of the small feudal aristocracy, for they are mostly recruited from the noble
families holding the great fiefs. Indeed, bishops can often be found on the battlefield,
fighting it out with the best.
The feudal system first appears in definite form in the Frankish lands in the 9th and
10th century AD. Feudalism emerged from the condition of society arising from the

8
disintegration of Roman institutions and the further disruption of Germanic inroads
and settlements. The development of fiefs was also influenced by the Roman
institution of Patricinium and the German institution of Mundium, by which the
powerful surrounded themselves with men who rendered them service, especially
military service, in exchange for protection. More and more, this service-and-
protection contract came to involve the granting of a Beneficium, the use of land,
which tended to become hereditary. Local royal officers and great landholders
increased their power and forced the king to grant them rights of private justice and
immunity from royal interference. By these processes’ feudalism became fixed in
Frankish lands by the end of the 10th century. The church also had great influence in
shaping feudalism; although the organization of the church was not feudal in
character, its hierarchy somewhat paralleled the feudal hierarchy. The church owned
much land, held by monasteries, by church dignitaries, and by the churches
themselves. Most of this land, given by nobles as a bequest or gift, carried feudal
obligations. Thus, clerical land, like lay land, assumed a feudal aspect, and the clergy
became participants in the temporal feudal system. Many bishops and abbots were
much like lay seigniors (i.e., feudal lord).
In this way during the period from 7 th to 12th century AD, the Europe witnessed the
emergence of feudal mode of production which in fact was the result of the long term
political and economic developments of preceding centuries. These developments
created the situation in which socio-economic systems were transformed as a result of
a synthesis of Roman and Germanic elements. The result was the emergence of feudal
mode of production intimately linked with the new types of social and economic
relations between the monarchy and the subordinate chiefs on the one hand, and
between chiefs/lords and subjected peasantry. The feudal mode of production was
deeply agrarian as well as based on subsistence economy as the agricultural
production meant mainly for household consumption not for markets.
1.3. FEATURES OF FEUDALISM
The frequent invasions and warfare during the early medieval period had devastating
impact upon particularly the western European society and economy. The overseas
trade had virtually disappeared and the internal trade and commerce reached to its
minimal level. In such a situation the main sources of income was land, which
gradually emerged as the central point in the formation of feudal society. At the same
time the frequent warfare created a demand of large armed forces but the rulers of the
period lacked the resources to maintain extensive armies. Therefore, the socio-
economic necessities of the early medieval period created the background for the

9
development of feudal relations based on the control of landed property and social
hierarchy.
Vassal
The vassal (who was also a lord in his estate) was a man of someone with superior
status. In this way every vassal was a man of someone else’s man or vassal. The
relation between the lord and the vassal depended on a mutual reciprocity, in which
vassal swore allegiance to his lord. The lord in return promised to protect the vassal
and take care of him by providing land for subsistence as well as maintenance for arm
retinues. The protection extended by the lord to a weaker neighbour or subordinate
vassal was called Maimbour in medieval French. In the ancient Germanic tribes the
chief was accompanied by close companions who were highly trained loyal warriors
and they shared a very close bond with him. These private fighting men were different
from rest of the army as being attached to the chief specifically. These close
companions were called “Gisind” in old German language that literally means
“companion for an expedition”. The Latin term “Comitatus” referred to a warrior-band
as a whole. Hence, it appears that from these private warrior-bands known as “Gisind”
and “Comitatus” the institution of vassalage gradually emerged.
Homage
The grant of landed property to vassal was ritualized and accompanied by the
extensive ceremonies came to be known as “homage”. The chief kneels or stands
before the king indicating to his submission to the king’s authority and acceptance to
become vassal of the king. It was followed by a kiss by the king on the mouth of chief
as a symbolic expression of their friendship and accord. This ceremony probably was
derived from remote Germanic practices symbolizing the tribal egalitarianism. From
the Carolingian period another rite was added to the homage ceremony, and now
vassal was required to place his hand on the Gospels or relics to swear loyalty to his
master. The act of swearing came to be known as fealty. In the beginning the
vassalage was not hereditary and with the death of the vassal was terminated.
However, in subsequent century it became hereditary and the son of the deceased was
allowed to inherit it. But the transfer of vassalage was not automatic; the son of the
deceased vassal was required to perform homage to the lord of his father. In a similar
way the vassals who had performed the homage to their lord, were required to perform
it again to the heir of the deceased lord. It is also noticeable that not everyone was
accepted as a vassal and it was only granted to the upper classes of the society
particularly to those who were associated with the profession of arms.

10
Feudal Hierarchy
The Fief was granted to the big lords (counts, dukes, i.e., the nobility) directly by the
king, in return of which they were required to maintain army as well as look after the
regional administration. The big lords in turn granted Fief (parts of their Fief) to lesser
lords (known as knights) below them, who had their own subordinates below them.
This process continued to be replicated downward to the level of peasantry.

Every lord, except king, at the same time was the vassal of someone else’s vassal.
Hence, each lord at each level was a supreme authority in his area. The growth of this
hierarchical structure led to subinfeudization and parcelization of sovereignty
according to Perry Anderson because the political sovereignty now lacked focus at a
single centre. By the 12th century the term Fief meant a heritable estate, which could
have been sold or granted almost without restriction; hence fealty by now became an
object of sale.
Manor
The manor, according to Perry Anderson was derived “from the Gallo-Roman Fundus
or villas” which referred to “huge, self-contained estates tilled by dependent peasant
Coloni (plural Colonus), delivering produce in kind to their magnate landowners”. At a
time when in comparison to available land the number of people was far less, it was
not possible for lords to hire a large number of labourers to work on their entire farm.
In such a situation an alternative system was developed in which labour force was
attached to the land. The system came to be known as manorial system. The manorial
system clearly emerged for the first time in Carolingian period. It continued to be the
dominant form of agrarian social and economic organization until about the 13th
century AD in most of north-western Europe. The manor (also called Seigneurie) was

11
a lord’s estate inhabited by lord’s subjects. It was divided into two parts. One part was
called “demesne” referring to the parts of manor, reserved for the lord. It was directly
managed by the lord and all produce from it went to the lord. Rest of the part of manor
comprised small landholdings given to peasants for their subsistence. In return of
which peasant were required to pay rent in the form of service and other customary
dues.
The lords in almost all cases kept the best fertile land under their direct control while
the peasant were given less fertile plots for sustenance in return of compulsory labour
and other dues. The grazing grounds were called “commons” possibly because
communally owned herds grazed there together. It was also made compulsory for all
the peasant inhabitants to use wine press to make wine, water-mill to grind corn, oven
to bake bread etc, all owned by the lord. In return of which peasants were made to pay
certain dues to the lord, called Banalities or monopolies. Besides this another
oppressive tax was Taille (Tallage), introduced towards the end of 11th century AD,
paid by the peasants in return of a protection provided to them by the lord. Another
tax paid by the peasantry was tithe to the Church. It began as a tax collected from all
the Christians out of a moral or religious duty in the service of god. But it was
rigorously imposed by the first Carolingian in France and by the Anglo-Saxon kings in
Britain.
1.4. DECLINE OF FEUDALISM
The peaceful conditions of the 10 th century onwards led to a considerable population
growth which solved the labour problem. Now there was enough labour supply for the
expansion of agriculture. The increase population where provided surplus to sustain
the people engaged in non-agricultural sector, it also resulted in the availability of
labour for non-agricultural activities like artisanal and craft works. Increased
population made available cheap labour force at the disposal of the lords. Now the
peasants were asked to pay rent in money or kind (i.e. portion of the produce) instead
of labour services (i.e. working on lord’s demesne without wages) in order to increase
the income of the lords. More and more land was reclaimed and given to the peasants
in return of money-rent. Gradually feudal lords enhanced land-rents and it increased
the exploitation of peasantry. As the large population was available to work on their
land, feudal lords did not invest in the technological improvement in the agriculture.
Rather they spent their most of wealth on luxuries. The feudal mode of production
thus became stagnant and the availability of cheap labour loosened the grip of feudal
lords over their serfs, who could now migrate to cities in search of livelihood.

12
Within this background of agricultural expansion and population growth developed
the conditions favourable for the growth of towns and trade in post 10 th century AD.
It’s noticeable that these urban centres were not isolated from their rural hinterland
rather depended on the countryside for raw material and labour for manufacture,
besides food. By the 12th century AD several new towns like Freiburg, Lubeck,
Munich, and Berlin emerged in Germany, while earlier towns like Paris, London and
Cologne roughly doubled in size. At the same time Italy particularly experienced the
concentration of largest cities like Venice, Genoa, Milan, Bologna, Palermo, Florence
and Naples. Towns not only provided markets for the agricultural and artisanal
products but also emerged as safe enclaves for runaway serfs or peasants seeking
better life. In fact escaped serfs were guaranteed freedom as well as work in several
manufacturing units (like cloth making) which were also in need of cheap labour. The
emergence of towns in different parts of the Europe was intimately linked with the
expansion of trading networks both overland as well as overseas. The trade in
Mediterranean Sea which had come under the control of Arabs in early Middle Ages
(i.e. prior to 1000 AD) was again brought into the hands of European merchants of
Italian city-states of Genoa, Pisa and Venice between 1050 and 1300 AD.
In this way, it becomes clear from above discussion, that an absence of frequent
warfare, peaceful conditions, population growth, favourable climatic conditions,
expansion of agriculture and several technical developments created the conditions for
the emergence of trade and towns in 12 th and 13th centuries in the various parts of the
Europe. And resultantly a transition from feudalism to mercantilism began to take
place. The decline of feudalism is mainly connected with a shift from intensive agrarian
economy to the economy based on free markers, trade and industries (capitalism).

Self Assessment questions.

a. Explain the term ‘feudalism’.
Answer.

b. Write a note on ‘homage’.

Answer.

c. Explain the term ‘vassal’.

Answer.

13
1.5. RISE OF MERCANTILISM
The-modern world of commerce and industry was governed by capitalism and
mercantilism. In a simpler form, capitalism is a system of production, distribution,
and exchange, in which accumulated wealth is invested by private owners for the sake
of profit. Its essential features are: private enterprise, competition for markets, and
business for profit. Capitalism is a system designed to encourage commercial
expansion beyond the local level, on a national and international level. On the other
hand, mercantilist doctrine emphasized direct government intervention in economic
policy to increase the general prosperity of the state. Mercantile theory held that a
state’s power depended on its actual, calculable wealth, expressed in terms of the
amount of gold and silver bullion in its possession at any given time. A state amassed
bullion (gold and silver- forms of wealth) by ensuring itself as favourable a balance of
trade as possible. Hence the degree to which a state could remain self-sufficient,
importing as little as necessary while exporting as much as possible, was the clearest
gauge not only of its economic prosperity but of its power.
Between 1450 and 1750 AD, the ‘commercial revolution’ took place and it brought a
revolutionary change in the economy of Europe. As the governments and
entrepreneurs facilitated the expansion of global commerce, it laid the foundation for a
commercial revolution. The enhanced agrarian production made available enough
surpluses that could be invested by bankers and traders for the expansion of trade
and commercial enterprises. Together, capitalists and merchants profited from such
investments. Even state began to take an active interest in these commercial
developments. In many countries of Europe the intervention of state in commercial
activities began to take place for increasing national wealth and power. This prepared
the ground for the birth of ‘mercantilism’ which aimed to play a vital role in the
economic prosperity of a nation. Adam Smith, the ‘Father of Economics’ first used the
word ‘Mercantilism’ in his famous book: Wealth of Nations (published in 1776).
Mercantilism means – “Governmental regulation of economic affairs, especially, trade
and industry.” The exponents of mercantilism opined that commerce is the key to
progress of every country.
The guilds and banking system gave great impetus for the growth of mercantilism. The
guilds acted as distribution centres and exported the surplus to outside countries.
This encouraged the international trade which was well-regulated by the banking
system. The growth of banking was necessarily accompanied by the adoption of
various aids to financial transactions on a large scale. Credit facilities (e.g., system of
payment by check, etc.) were developed and extended in such a way that a merchant

14
could purchase goods anywhere in Western Europe. On the other hand, the
geographical discoveries in America, Africa and Asia further encouraged mercantilism.
The sea voyage of Columbus, Vasco-da-Gama, Magellan and others encouraged
mercantilism by discovering new markets for the European products as well as
sources of raw material for the European factories. Political patronage established
mercantilism on sound footing. The kings wanted to reduce the power of the feudal
lords and Barons. So, they encouraged the merchants for trade. Henry, ‘the Navigator’
of Portugal and Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth of England patronised sailors. Their
patronage established Mercantilism on sound footing and regulated trade companies
were formed. The regulated company was an association of merchants banded
together for a common venture. Usually the purpose of the combination was to
maintain a monopoly of trade in some part of the world. At last, scientific inventions
and discoveries helped a lot in the growth of mercantilism. The inventions of telescope
by Galileo and mariner’s compass also helped merchants in their sea voyages.
1.6. IMPACTS OF MERCANTILISM
The dominant economic philosophy of the period in Europe was mercantilism. This
theory proclaimed that it was the duty of the government to strictly regulate a state’s
economy. Mercantilists believed that it was crucial for a state to import more than it
exported, since the world’s wealth was limited. The possession of colonies (so a nation
wouldn’t have to rely on other nations for raw materials), tariffs, and monopolies were
other mercantilist tactics of the era. The mercantile doctrine had profound impacts on
state policy. First, it let to the establishment and development of overseas colonies.
Colonies provided raw material, including precious metals in some instances, which
would otherwise have to be obtained through trade from other countries. Second, it
inspired state governments to encourage industrial production and trade. These both
have been the sources of revenue and their growth increased the state’s income. And
finally, mercantile doctrine persuaded policy-makers in different West European
countries to discourage domestic consumption, since goods purchased on the home
market reduced the goods available for export. Government policy was thus to keep
wages low, so that laborers would not have money to spend for more than it took to
provide them with basic food and shelter.
The goal of capitalism was a commercial system that would make individual rich. The
goal of mercantilism was a system that would make the state powerful. Though they
differed as to ends, the two systems functioned compatibly together for most of the early-
modern period. Together, governments and entrepreneurs designed new institutions that
facilitated the expansion of global commerce during the 17th and 18th

15
centuries. Although most western European statesmen were prepared to endorse
mercantilist goals in principle, the degree to which their policies reflected those goals
varied according to national circumstances. Spain and Netherland while halfhearted
pursued these goals, the English and the French, who combined in differing degrees
governmental centralization and independent commercial enterprise most consistently
and effectively pursued the goals of mercantilism. Resultantly, the England and
France became the most successful practitioners of mercantilism in early modern
Europe. They established their colonies in America, Africa and Asia and ruthlessly
exploited the resources –both human and natural, of their colonies. The institutions of
the commercial revolution – banks, credit facilities, regulated companies, etc., were
designed specifically to assist both capitalist entrepreneurs and mercantilist policy-
makers in the development and exploitation of overseas colonies and trading posts.
These overseas colonies thus had been the most visible evidence of the economic
expansionism of early-modern Europe.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Comment on the ‘mercantilist doctrine’.
Answer.

b. Who wrote the book, Wealth of Nations?

Answer.

c. Comment on the Commercial Revolution?

Answer.

1.7. SUMMARY
Both feudalism and mercantilism had been major developments of the medieval
Europe that shaped its society, economy and polity. Having emerged from the fusion of
the Roman institution of Patricinium and the German institution
of Mundium, feudalism mainly concerned with the organisation of agrarian production.
The hierarchical control over landed resources complimented the political
decentralisation and a relationship of mutual dependence between the king and his
vassals. Absence of trade and urban economy was the major feature of the feudal
system that thrived on the labour of serfs. The vassals received land from the king in
return of loyalty, military service and tributes. The scarcity of labour had created the
16
conditions for the emergence of bonded labour force (serfs) under the control of feudal
lords; but the expansion of agriculture stimulated the population growth in the 11 th-
12th century. As more hands became available for undertaking the farm work, the
feudal lords loosened their grip on the serfs. The labours shifted away from
countryside and joined the workforce in the manufactories at towns. Both agrarian
and labour surplus stimulated the trade and industries, and it prepared the ground
for the emergence of mercantilism. Since mercantilist doctrine emphasized a direct
government intervention in economic policy to increase the general prosperity of the
state, the state under different rulers in Western Europe began intervening in trade
enterprises within and well as beyond Europe. State governments encouraged
industrial production and trade and it increased state’s income from revenue. And one
of the major results of these developments was the establishment of European
colonies in America, Africa and Asia.
1.8. REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward Mac Nall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - B/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Farooqi, Amar, (2002 Second Revised Edition), Early Social Formations,
Manak Publication Pvt. Ltd: New Delhi.
1.9. FURTHER READINGS
 Anderson, Perry, (1974), Passage from Antiquity to Feudalism, NLB: London,
& Humanities Press: Atlantic Highlands.
 Bloch, March, (2006), Feudal Society, Two Volumes, (translated from the
French by L.A. Manyon), Gaur Publishers & Distributors: Delhi.
1.10. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Discuss the reasons responsible for the rise of feudalism.
2. Highlight the key features of feudal system.
3. Discuss the main characteristics of mercantilism.
4. How mercantilism impacted European nations?

*****

17
 Chapter 2

POLITICO-RELIGIOUS CHANGES: RENAISSANCE;

REFORMATION; RISE OF ABSOLUTE STATES IN FRANCE AND
PRUSSIA, RISE OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT: THE
GLORIOUS REVOLUTION AND ITS EFFECTS

Structure
2.0. Objectives
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Renaissance
a. Literary and Artistic Achievements
b. Scientific Achievements
2.3. Reformation
2.4. Rise of absolute States in France and Prussia
2.5. The Glorious Revolution
a. Impacts of the Glorious Revolution
2.6. Summary
2.7. References
2.8. Further Readings
2.9. Model Questions
2.0. OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 Understand the nature of Renaissance

 Acquire information about Reformation
 Gain knowledge regarding the nature of absolute states
 Understand how Glorious Revolution impacted England
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The period from 15th to 18th century in the history of Europe was a phase of great
political, cultural and social upheavals and transformations. The Renaissance
encouraged the Europeans to use reason and experience for understanding of the
material world. Inventions and discoveries in the field of art and science gave a new
direction to European culture and society. Reformation brought a moment, when
Europeans questioned the authority of the Christian church and developed a more
18
humane and popular version of Christianity. In countries like England, Protestantism
gained firm roots with the support of bourgeoisie. In France and Prussia, whereas the
absolutism took birth as a defining ideology of monarchy, England witnessed a tussle
between the monarchy and the parliament. In this conflict for power, the Parliament
gained success and it laid the foundation of the constitutional monarchy.
2.2. RENAISSANCE
The word Renaissance means “rebirth” or “revival”. The renaissance, in history, refers
to a period of approximately three hundred years that in Western Europe marked the
revival of art, literature and learning. The Renaissance therefore served as bridge, or
transition, between medieval and modern Western Europe. At one time many
historians held that the renaissance signified a sharp break with the preceding
medieval period. More recently some scholar has argued that the renaissance was an
evolutionary change from or outgrowth of the Later Middle Ages. The Renaissance
began with the rediscovery of Greco-Roman civilization, which had been generally
neglected during the middle ages. The Renaissance emphasised reason, a questioning
attitude, experimentation and free inquiry – in contrast to the medieval concern with
faith, authority and tradition, and it glorified the individual and approved worldly
pleasures, viewing life as worthwhile for its own sake. The focus was now upon the
worldly matters arising out of a secular society and not the medieval preoccupation
with the Roman Catholic and religious affairs. The Renaissance ethos promoted great
achievements in literature, art and science. The Renaissance arose in Italy, because as
the centre of the Greco-Roman culture, Italy contained sculpture, building, roads and
manuscripts that excited curiosity about classical civilization. Located on the
Mediterranean, Italy had also absorbed stimulating new ideas from the advanced
Byzantine and Moslem worlds.
Florence is usually considered to be the outstanding city of the Italian Renaissance. In
the 15th century the city came under the rule of the Medici – originally a merchant
family who amassed a fortune in the wool trade and expanded into banking. Florence
had many residents who achieved fame as Renaissance painters’ sculptors, architects
and writers. Also, by virtue of its artistic leadership and patronage, Florence attracted
people of talents from elsewhere in Italy. Renaissance ideas spread from Italy to
France, the German states, Holland and England. This cultural diffusion resulted from
religious, military and commercial contacts. Also, many northern scholars travelled to
Italy to absorb Italian art and learning. During the middle ages in Western Europe,
Latin was the language of literature, of the church and of educated people. Over the

19
centuries, however, other tongues for instance, French, Italian, Spanish, German and
English had been evolving through everyday usages.
Several writers including Dante (12-65-1321), Boccaccio (1313-1375) and Chaucer
(1340-1400) used vernacular languages in addition o Latin; but later European writers
even discarded Latin entirely and embraced vernacular languages in their literary
works. Dante was born in Florence, and he wrote the Divine Comedy in the vernacular.
Boccaccio, another Italian, lived in Florence and he was a humanist, poet, and writer.
On the other hand, Chaucer was an Englishman, and he used English in his collection
of stories in verse, the Canterbury Tales. In 1450 printing with movable type was
invented by a German named John Gutenburg. As compared to medieval hand
copying books, printing tremendously increased printing of books with remarkable
accuracy and it also decreased cost of producing books for mass consumption. Not
only the availability of printing encouraged talented people to write, but also made
available books for larger circulation among the people. The Renaissance was a time of
transition from the ancient world to the modern world and it prepared a ground for the
Age of Enlightenment. The developments in the field of science, art, philosophy and
trade along with technological advancements (e.g., printing press) significantly
impacted the European society.
a. Literary and Artistic Achievements
An Italian writer Machiavelli (1469-1527) served the Florentine republic as secretary
and diplomat and he wrote The Prince – a major European work on ethics and
government. Rabelais (1494-1553), a French writer wrote the romances: Gargantua
and Pantagruel. With tongue-in-check humour, he portrayed a comic world of giants
whose adventures satirized education, politics and philosophy. But it was
Shakespeare (1564-1616), an Englishman, who is remembered as the greatest poet
and playwright of all time. In his plays he employed superb dramatic technique to
probe historical events and human character. Shakespeare’s best-known plays include
the histories: Henry Ⅳ and Henry Ⅴ; the comedies: Twelfth Nights and A Mid-summer
Night’s Dream; and the tragedies: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Julius Caesar and
Macbeth. Milton (1608-1674), retold the biblical story of the creation and the Garden
of Eden in his epic poem, Paradise Lost. He also strongly advocated freedom of the
press in an essay, Areopagitica. Giotto (1266-1337), born near Florence, was a painter
and an architect. He realistically portrayed religious themes in his many forces
(painting on walls), such as, St. Francis Preaching to the Birds. For the Cathedral of
Florence, he designed the blame bell tower, usually called Giotto’s Tower.

20
The most notable painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer and scientist, of the
Renaissance had been Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), who was associated with
Florence, Milan and Rome. He painted such masterpieces as: self-Portrait, The Last
Supper, and the Mona Lisa. On the other side, Michelangelo (1475-1564) was another
many-sided Renaissance genius; he was a talented painter, sculptor, poet, and
architect. He painted biblical scenes and figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in
the Vatican; carved the Pietà, showing Mary grieving over the dead Jesus; carved
massive status of old Testament figure, David and Moses; and designed the dome of
St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome. Raphael (1483-1520) was another famous painter, who
worked in Florence and Rome and he captured tranquil beauty in many religious
works, for example: the Sistine Madonna.
b. Scientific Achievements
In the field of sciences, the ancient Greek belief that the entire universe has been
constructed around perfect laws and reasoning, gained wider acceptance, and it
encouraged the study of astronomy, anatomy, medicine, geography, alchemy,
mathematics and architecture for developing an understanding of the natural laws
behind human and natural phenomenon. One of the major scientific discoveries of the
Renaissance came from Polish mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.
In the 1530s, he published his theory of a heliocentric solar system. This placed the
sun at the centre of the solar system and this theory challenged the Christian belief in
the centrality of the Earth in entire universe. It was a major breakthrough in the
history of science; but Copernicus' book was banned by the Catholic Church.
Empiricism became the backbone of scientific thought and European scientists gained
guidance from experience and experiments in their investigation of the natural world.
With this a shift from religion to reason began in the Renaissance Europe. Galileo
Galilei was a major Renaissance scientist, who had been persecuted for his scientific
experiments. Galileo improved the telescope, discovered new celestial bodies and
found support for a heliocentric solar system. He conducted motion experiments on
pendulums and falling objects that paved the way for Newton's discoveries about
gravity. The Catholic Church forced him to spend the last nine years of his life under
house arrest.
2.3. REFORMATION
The Reformation was a religious revolt against the authority and certain doctrines of
the Roman Catholic Church and it gave birth to several Protestant sects. It was a
movement that questioned the hegemonic authority of the Church on civil and political
matters. Rulers in different European countries envied the Church’s power and wealth
21
and they desired to restrict the Church’s authority. The Renaissance, by its ferment of
new ideas, contributed in the Reformation. As the Renaissance emphasised on
individual expression and encouraged people to seek direct relationship with the God,
the Church’s role was questioned as the all powerful authority supervising the
relationship between an individual and the God. Some educated persons began to
doubt Church religious powers and authority. These same persons also challenged
Church’s teachings on astronomy, history and Bible interpretation. Certain practices
of the Church such as clergy’s indulgence in material life, appointment of relatives by
clergy at plump posts in Church offices, selling of appointments to Church offices by
clergy and even acceptance of money for Church Pardons from people, were criticised
by people, and they began demanding reforms in the Church.
One of the major figures that lead the Reformation had been Martin Luther (1483–
1546), who was a priest and a professor of theology at Wittenberg University,
Germany. He led a public protest against the sale by clergy of “indulgences” (i.e.,
pardons for sins). Subsequently, Luther attacked other precepts of the Church,
including the core Catholic dogma of transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and
wine at communion transform into the body and blood of Christ) and the Pope’s
supremacy. Attempts were made to reconcile Luther with the religious authorities,
until in 1521, he was summoned to present his views at an Imperial Assembly (Diet)
at Worms before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Luther refused to recant and, in
response to the Emperor’s outlawing of him and his views, began an autonomous
Church. Luther’s teachings appealed to German princes opposed to imperial
dominance; they wrote a public letter of protest to the Emperor on Luther’s behalf,
from which the term “Protestantism” was born.
Throughout the 1520s, the German states of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and
Brunswick supported Luther’s views. Gradually the Bible began to be seen the
supreme religious authority in place of Pope, and John Calvin (1509-1564), a French
religious reformer, authored the book: Institutes of the Christian Religion. He taught
the doctrine of predestination, which believed that only those elected beforehand by
God would achieve salvation. He founded a simple form of worship and advocated a
serious, moral and hardworking life. His teachings came to be known as Calvinism,
and it gained popularity in Switzerland, Scotland, Netherlands, and large parts of
France. Lutheranism had meanwhile spread from large areas of Germany into
Scandinavia, and England. The Roman Catholic Church faced crisis. Henry ⅤⅠⅠⅠ- the
king of England (1509-1547), at first a loyal Catholic, broke with the Church because
the pope refused to grant him a divorce from his Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon.

22
Henry also desired for the crown the extensive Church properties in England.
Therefore, he induced Parliament to pass the Act of Supremacy (1534), which
instituted the Anglican Church of England, independent of Rome and under the
leadership of the English ruler.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Explain the term Renaissance.
Answer.

b. Write the name of any two renaissance writers.

Answer.

c. Who was Machiavelli?

Answer.

d. Who was Martin Luther?

Answer.

2.4. RISE OF ABSOLUTE STATES IN FRANCE AND PRUSSIA

The period from the accession to personal rule of Louis XIV (1643-1715) of France
until the French Revolution is known as the age of absolutism. The label is accurate if
we define absolution as the conscious extension of the legal and administrative power
of state sovereigns over their subjects, and over the vested interests of the social and
economic orders in which those subjects were ranked. Sixteen century kings saw in
Protestantism a way of asserting the sovereignty of their states as a challenge to papal
(Church under Pope) and aristocratic power. The absolutism was not considered
despotism; rather the kings in spite of becoming powerful, continued to respect the
aristocracy, churchmen, merchants and entrepreneurs. Moreover, the rulers respected
the law and brought under their control state’s arm forces, the administration of its
legal system, and the collection as well as distribution of its tax revenues. Absolutist
monarchs insisted upon their duty to teach their subjects, even against their will, how
to order their domestic affairs. The absolute monarchs promised to provide stability
and prosperity – freedom and opulence – by ending the disorder in society. They
weakened the authority of nobility and the Church in order to enhance the power of

23
the king. Louis XIV shifted his court to the grand palace at Versailles, a town outside
of Paris, and it became a symbol of his power over the nobility/aristocracy. The main
facade of the palace was a third of a mile in length. Inside, tapestries and paintings
celebrated French military victories and royal triumphs. Noblemen vied to attend the
king, when he arose from bed, ate his meal, strolled in his gardens, or rode to the
hunt. A clear difference between the king and the nobles was maintained.
Louis XIV controlled the ancient French aristocracy by depriving it of political power
while increasing its social prestige. The popular belief that the French rulers cultivated
among the French people was the ability of the ruler’s touch to heal diseases. Louis
and his successors used this belief to enhance their position as divine-right rulers
endowed with God-like powers and far removed from common humanity. Louis XIV
called himself the Sun King; and therefore, his court was projected the epicentre of his
royal effulgence. He famously proclaimed, “I am the state” and believed that: The
deference and the respect that the ruler receives from his subjects are not free gifts
from them but payment for the justice and the protection that they expect from the
king. Just as they honour the king, the king must protect and defend them. While
taming the aristocracy, he conciliated the upper bourgeoisie by enlisting its members
to assist him in the task of administration as intendants, who looked after the
administration and taxation of thirty-six administrative units (called generalites) into
which France was divided. These officials held office at king’s pleasure, and looked
after the welfare of countryside. Louis XIV was determined to impose religious unity
upon the French, and adhered to the absolutist doctrine of “one kind, one law, one
faith”. He persecuted the Protestants and several other sects and allowed the Jesuits,
who served his interests best; the Jesuits advocated obedience to the secular power of
the French state. The economic stability that was achieved in France by Jean Baptiste
Colbert (1619-1683) – the finance minister of Louis XIV, provided enough resources to
the French king for undertaking military expeditions as well as restricting of
administration. Colbert was an energetic and committed mercantilist who believed
that until France could put its fiscal house in order it could not achieve economic
greatness. He tightened the process of tax collection, hounding corrupt officials and
eliminated wherever possible the practice of tax farming (a system whereby collection
agents were permitted to withhold a certain percentage of what they gathered for
themselves). When Colbert assumed office, only about 25 percent of the taxes collected
throughout the kingdom was reaching the treasury. By the time he died, that figure
had risen to 80 percent.
The degree of success enjoyed by Louis XIV as an absolutist monarch was in part the
result of his own abilities, and of those of his advisors including Colbert. On the other

24
hand, in Prussia, the absolute state took roots during the reign of Fredrick the Great
(reined from 1740 to 1786). Through his foreign policy, he managed to establish a firm
control over Brandenburg, Prussia, and tiny states of Cleves, Mark and Ravensberg.
He raised a large standing army, which enabled him and his successors an absolute
political control by fostering obedience among the populace. He imposed an effective
taxation system and created an efficient bureaucracy to manage it. In return for an
agreement which allowed the landlords to reduce their peasant underlings to the
status of serfs, these landlords agreed not to oppose a permanent tax system as long
as they were exempted from it. Resultantly, the entire burden of taxes fell on the
peasantry. But the political privileges of landlords too were terminated and
centralisation of bureaucracy took place. Fredrick William’s success was due primarily
to his ability to gain the active cooperation of the landlord class. Fredrick followed a
policy of expediency which was explained by him in these words: “Take what you can,
you are never wrong unless you are obliged to give back.” As regards his home policy,
he promoted the material resources of the country by improving agriculture by
draining marshes and constructing new canals. Fredrick encouraged industries by
giving subsidies. He followed a policy of religious toleration and was prepared to allow
even the Turks to come to Prussia if they could add to the prosperity of his country.
He considered himself as the first servant of the Prussian state and held the German
language graceless. Fredrick was the most celebrated king of his time in entire
Europe. His principles and methods of “enlightened despotism” were admired and
copied by the rulers of his day.
2.5. THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION
The contestation between the monarchy and the parliament for supreme authority
over the state resulted in the English Revolution and it caused the victory of
parliament over monarchy. It was a bourgeois revolution that tried for the destruction
of feudalism in England. The Stuart dynasty was established in 1603, following the
Tudor dynasty and all the Stuart monarchs believed in absolutism without taking into
confidence the parliament to run the administration. The differences between the
Stuart Kings and the parliament developed at three levels – on religion, on finance and
on foreign policy. These issues culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The
Stuart monarchs were the upholders of the Divine Right of Kingship. Since the king
was a representative of God on earth, he was responsible only to God and not to the
people. It was in this background that, the political aspirations and ambitions of the
newly emerged Middle Class began to clash with the absolutist policies if the Stuarts.
In the matter of religion, the rulers of the Stuart dynasty were Catholics and they

25
followed anti-puritan policy. But the puritans were a Protestant group. This attitude
and policy of the Stuart dynasts were vehemently opposed by the Parliament, which
had puritans as majority. Likewise, the Stuart rulers imposed taxes without the
consent of the parliament and those who refused to obey were fined or imprisoned.
The whole burden of taxation and other illegal impositions fell on mostly on the middle
class, who represented the Parliament. In matters of foreign policy, the monarchs
followed a pro-Catholic foreign policy and maintained cordial relation with catholic
countries of Europe like Spain and France. But the parliament wanted to keep
friendship with Protestant countries such as Holland and Protestant principalities of
Germany.
In 1640, due to financial compulsions, the king Charles I was forced to convene the
meeting of the parliament and the parliament passed an act that forbade the king
from dissolving the parliament without the consent of the parliament. The king was
not happy with this development and the civil war broke out in 1642. The supporters
of the king were called the Cavaliers, which included the nobility, the Anglican clergy
and the Roman Catholics. Those who supported the parliament were the Roundheads
that included the new gentry and the puritans. The leader of the Roundheads was
Oliver Cromwell. In the end, control of the sea, possession of greater economic
resources, superior general ship and the alliance with the Scots helped the
Roundheads to defeat the Cavaliers. The civil war ended in 1648, and the king Charles
I was publicly executed in 1649. The monarchy was abolished for a short period and
England was ruled by the House of Lords (the parliament) from 1649 to 1660. The
monarchy however was restored under the Stuart dynasty in 1660, when Charles II,
the son of the Charles I was officially invited by the parliament and made the king.
But again a conflict between the monarchy (during the reign of James II, who was
brother of Charles II) and parliament again arose, and resultantly, the English
Revolution broke out. The parliament removed James II and invited his daughter Mary
and her husband William of Orange – both were protestant Christians, to be the rulers
of England. James II fled to France. Thus, without a war, a political change happened
in England and this event is known as the Glorious Revolution or the Bloodless
Revolution or the English Revolution of 1688.
a. Impacts of the Glorious Revolution
This revolution was instrumental in bringing changes in political field. In the place of
absolute monarchy, Constitutional monarchy was brought in. This revolution
discarded the Divine Right theory of monarchy. It resulted in the formulation of the
Bill of Rights of 1689. It also resulted in ending the long quarrel between the king and

26
parliament and led to the victory of parliament over monarchy. This paved the way for
the eventual destruction of feudalism. John Locke- an English political philosopher,
played an instrumental role in shaping the ideology of the English revolution and it is
often stated that Bill of Rights was Lockean in character. Locke was an influential
thinker of the 17th century, who upheld the theory of Social Contract. Parliament
passed a resolution declaring the throne vacant by James II had broken the original
contract between the king and his subjects (people); therefore, the crown was offered
to Mary and her husband. Both were treated as joint Sovereigns with equal rights.
Both accepted the crown on the terms offered and on February 13, 1789, they were
formally proclaimed as William III and Mary II. By deposing James II and elevating
William and Mary to the throne Parliament established its right both to dethrone and
to set up a monarch. It was a final blow at the divine rights of the king. There after all
authority centred in the Parliament, which came to direct the policy of the nation
hence forth. Foundations were laid for the cabinet system of government, which today
is the way of life of people of England. Parliament now became final and ultimate
authority in imposing and reducing all taxes. The king had now no authority,
whatsoever, to tax the people on his own. Supremacy of Parliament was
acknowledged. It also deprived the king of suspending laws, passed by the Parliament
at his discretion. It was decreed that no sovereign who professed the Catholic religion
or who married a Catholic should be permitted to reign. Protestantism was made the
state religion in England.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Define the term, ‘absolutism’ as a political ideology.
Answer.

b. Who was Jean Baptiste Colbert?

Answer.

c. Comment on the Divine Right of Kingship.

Answer.

d. Who was John Locke?

Answer.

27
2.6. SUMMARY
It is evident from above discussion that the major historical developments, viz.,
Renaissance, Reformation, rise of absolutist monarchies and the glorious revolution in
Europe had been connected to each others. These developments altogether gave a new
shape to European polity, society and culture, and stimulated the rise of modern
world. The Renaissance belief in human reasoning and quest for truth promoted
individualism and the dominance of Church in people’s life was gradually eroded in
the Reformation movement. The triumph of parliament against monarchy in England
was the major political change without any bloodshed.
2.7. REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - B/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
2.8. FURTHER READINGS
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
 Merriman, J., (2009), A History of Modern Europe, N. W. Norton Company.
2.9. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Discuss the artistic and scientific developments associated with the
Renaissance.
2. What is Protestantism? Discuss.
3. What is Glorious Revolution? How it impacted the English monarchy?

*****

28
 Chapter 3

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: SOCIAL, POLITICAL

AND ECONOMIC CAUSES AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Structure
3.0. Objectives
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Causes of the American Revolution
3.3. Beginning of the American Revolution
3.4. The Armed Conflicts: the Americans and the British Forces
a. Diplomatic Relations with Non-British Powers
3.5. Consequences of the American Revolution
3.6. Summary
3.7. References
3.8. Further Readings
3.9. Model Questions
3.0. OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:

 Understand the nature of American Revolution

 Acquire information about the causes of American Revolution
 Gain knowledge regarding the major events of American Revolution
 Understand the role of France and Spain in the American War of Independence
 Study about the Consequences of American Revolution
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The American Revolution is believed to have inaugurated an era of world revolutions
and had points of similarity with the revolutions that followed it. First of all, it was an
anti-colonial war that had been waged by a colonial people for their independence. In
that respect, it was the seedbed for all the later anti-colonial movements in Latin
America, Asia, and Africa. Second, it was a revolt against monarchy, which supplanted
the royal system by a republic system of governance. Third, it was a civil war that was
fought not between great sections of the country; but as the American Civil War it was
fought in each state, county, and village of North America. Fourth, it resulted in the
creation in America as a nation that was different both in origins and in character
29
from the nations of the Old World. Thus, this political development in North America
touched off an era of revolutionary nationalism that has not yet run its course. Finally,
it marked the formulation of new principles governing the relation of men to
government, which might be put under the rubric of constitutionalism.
3.2. CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Although the American Revolution increased in complexity as the war progressed, it
actually originated as a protest against the subordination by the mother country of
colonies inhabited by people of the same nationality as the homeland. The Europeans,
who had settled down in America, gradually grown to a degree of maturity and
acquainted with the nuances of governance, and therefore, they could no longer accept
a status of total subordination within the British Empire. To gain liberty and
autonomy in governance, they rebelled against the British authorities.
That colonial discontent had long been smouldering is obvious in retrospect. But it is
equally obvious that the beginning of the sharp cleavage between the colonies and
Great Britain can be traced only to the closing years of the French and Indian War for
a mastery over India. It was the colonial phase, in which intense battles were fought
between England and France in the period between 1689 and 1763. As a result of
these wars, England acquired from France not only Canada but all land lying between
the Appalachians and the Mississippi, along with East and West Florida. The peace
settlement posed innumerable administrative and fiscal problems for the victors.
Simultaneously, this victory against the France removed the threat of invasion by a
hostile power (i.e., France) against the British colonies. Owning of this threat, the
English colonies in America had long reconciled with the British authorities in matters
related to the rule over America by the mother country. Indeed, the proposals to
resolve these new and enlarged administrative and fiscal problems crisis between the
colonies and the mother country. For example, the effort to prevent smuggling and
illicit trade with the enemy in wartime precipitated a confrontation in 1761 over the
issuance of general search warrants (“Writs of Assistance”), which the Massachusetts
lawyer James Otis exploited to the full. The exercise by the British home authority of
the right to disallow colonial laws and hear cases on appeal from colonial courts
precipitated a similar crisis when Virginia sought to pay its clergy in overvalued
currency. In the so-called Parson’s Cause, young Patrick Henry, arguing the colony’s
case, gained instant notoriety by his daring attack on the royal authority. To
compound its difficulties, the British government antagonized a motley collection of
land speculators by issuing the Proclamation of 1763, temporarily reserving land west
of the Appalachians as Indian hunting grounds.

30
To meet the enormous new fiscal problems inherited from the Grenville ministry in
1764 proposed a tariff on sugar, molasses, and rum that had been imported into
America form the foreign West Indies. It did so not with the intent of stopping this
trade, for the unenforceable Molasses Act of 1733 had shown that to be impossible,
but rather to raise revenue in America. The enforcement of the “Sugar Act” involved
overhauling the entire customs machinery and the relentless prosecutions of
smugglers. In addition, the “Stamp Act” of 1765 levied a tax within the colonies by
requiring that stamps be affixed to newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, and
other items. While the Sugar Act was unpopular among merchants, the Stamp Act
aroused even wider condemnation, touching off a violent three-pronged attack – an
ideological assault on the nature of the British Constitution, an economic boycott of
British goods, and civil disorder and disobedience. An extra-legal Stamp Act Congress
meeting in New York City denied the right of the British Parliament to tax the colonies
without representation. The scale of the American’s resistance, notable their ability to
retaliate economically, astonished the home authorities. After fierce debate the Stamp
Act was repealed. Deferring to the ill-omened advice of William Pitt, Parliament
attached to its repeal a Declaratory Act explicitly asserting its unbounded right to
legislate the colonies. A provocative element in these colonial disputes was the
presence of the British army in America with its headquarters first in New York and
then, after 1768, in Boston. The ostensible ground for maintaining troops in America
after the French and Indian War to secure peace on the frontiers, but as long as the
colonies were torn by civil disorders it was obvious to everybody that the troops would
be held in state of readiness at strategic seaboard locations. A number of clashes
between colonists and Redcoats (British soldiers) occurred, culminating, or March 5,
1770, in the so-called Boston Massacre.
Meantime, the various British ministries, after backpedalling on the taxation issue,
tried once again to raise revenue in America through the “Townshend Acts” of 1767.
The Townshend Acts imposed duties on a long list of imports. Once again, the home
government miscalculated. The American response repeated the pattern which had
been set during the Stamp Act crises. And once again the home government backed
down, leaving merely a tax on tea, to uphold the principle of the Declaratory Act. That
tax was still on the books in 1773 when the ministry of Lord North, seeking to rescue
the East India Company form financial straits, secured the passage of the “Tea Act” by
which the company acquired a monopoly of the tea trade with America. The colonial
response was the “Boston Tea Party” of December 16, 1773, against the “Tea Act” by
the American patriots, who threw the chests of tea into the Boston Harbour in protest.
It was this defiant action by the American patriots, which confirmed Georgein his
31
resolve to use force to reduce Massachusetts to submission. Meanwhile, Parliament
passed a series of punitive measures, the “Intolerable Acts.” The Boston port was
closed until that town had paid for the destroyed tea cargo, and in various ways the self-
government of Massachusetts was severely restricted. In addition, the Quebec Act, passed
at the same time, turned over to the Province of Canada the lands north and west of the
Ohio River which the colonies had long claimed by charter right.
The “Intolerable Acts” confirmed the patriots in their conviction that Parliament had
no constitutional right to tax or legislate for the colonies, a line which was forcefully
advanced in the year 1774 by such noteworthy revolutionary political figures as James
Wilson of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, young Alexander Hamilton of
New York and John Adams of Massachusetts. Indeed, the Intolerable Acts
accomplished what a decade of laborious agitation had failed to bring about – union
among the thirteen colonies. On September 1, 1774, a Congress convened at
Philadelphia. Quickly routing a strong conservative element, the radicals secured the
adoption of a drastic boycott of British goods and Declaration and Resolves setting
forth the colonists’ right to “life, liberty and property.” Congress took measures to put
the colonies in a posture of self-Defence, and before adjourning agreed to meet again
on May 10, 1775, it by that date American wrongs had not need redressed.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Comment on “Stamp Act” of 1765.
Answer.

b. Comment on “Townshend Acts” of 1767.

Answer.

c. Comment on “Tea Act” of 1773.

Answer.

d. Comment on the “Boston Tea Party”.

Answer.

3.3. BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

With Recoats vigilant and Minutemen organizing, drilling, marching, and stockpiling
arms in various colonies, a confrontation seemed inevitable. It came on April 19, 1775,
32
when some advance British units, rounding up subversive and subversives and
searching for arms and munitions, clashed with seventy armed Minutemen on the
town common of Lexington, Massachusetts, Marching on to Concord, the Redcoats
(British soldiers) destroyed such military stores as they could hind, but their return
march to the protection of the coast became a frantic retreat, with soldiers running a
gauntlet of fire from the roadside and suffering surprisingly heavy casualties. From
that date until July 4, 1776, the Americans fought a fairly large-scale military action
without avowedly seeking independence. The largest of these actions took place in
June, 1775, when the British managed to drive a heavily entrenched American force
form Bunker Hill in Boston. The British at Bunker Hill won only a Pyrrhic victory,
however, for they suffered enormous casualties, while the Patriots demonstrated that
their soldiers were no mere rabble in arms but the core of a disciplined army.
It was at this strategic time that Congress designated George Washington to be
commander in chief of the Continental army. An affluent Virginia planter, Washington
had gained seasoning by his colony’s militia during the French and India War. He was
a dedicated patriot, who possessed qualities that inspired confidence and commanded
respect in his followers. Daringly stripping Fort Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain, of
its cannon, and transporting them 300 miles to Boston, Washington was able to fortify
Dorchester Heights and place the British fleet in Boston Harbour in an untenable
position, deprived of naval support, on March 17, 1776, the British Army evacuated
the city, ending an eight-month siege. In other ways, however, the Patriots fared poorly
in the north. A daring campaign to capture Quebec and make Canada the fourteenth
state collapsed after a costly frontal attack was repulsed on the night of December 31,
1775. In turn, the British failed to exploit their adversary’s weakness on the northern
frontier.
For fifteen months American and British troops fought without a formal declaration of
war, but various events conspired to work against reconciliation. King George refused
to receive a so-called Olive Branch Petition drawn for Congress by John Dickinson.
Confronted with a poor enlistment rate for an unpopular war, the British Ministry
bolstered its army with German mercenaries, loosely called “Hessians” because of the
large number purchased from the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. Also contributing to the
irreversible trend toward independence was Tom Paine’s Common Sense, published in
January, 1776. The Common Sense- this pamphlet was a sensational and persuasive
attack both on monarchy as an institution and on the monarch, George, as a person.
Town after town pressed for a public declaration of independence, and colonial leaders
responded to the ground-swell. Finally, on June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of

33
Virginia proposed a resolution in congress that the United Colonies “are, and of right
ought to be, free and independent states.” Congress named a committee of five – John
Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman
– to prepare a declaration. Jefferson, then only the thirty-three, was chosen by the
committee to give literary expression to the arguments justifying the colonies in
dissolving their political bonds with the mother country. Congress endorsed the
Declaration on July 4, 1776, at which time it was John Hancock as president of the
Congress. Subsequently, the fifty-five signed the Declaration and all signers attached
their names to what has become the official proclamation of American sovereignty, of
the principal of government by consent, and of the ideal of equality.
3.4. ARMED CONFLICTS: THE AMERICAN AND THE BRITISH FORCES
The British forces outnumbered the Americans both on sea and on land, and had
incomparably superior financial resources. But the Americans had the advantages of
fighting from much shorter interior lines of communication and of conducting a war
on familiar soil. The Americans had, however one serious disadvantage, which the
British expected to exploit had been the Presence in the colonies of a very substantial
element of Loyalists or Tarries, who opposed independence. In addition, the British
counted upon the backing of their India allies on the frontiers, who could be expected
to consider the king their protector against the aggression of colonial settlers.
Unfortunately, from the British point of view, neither Loyalists nor Indians were
crucial factors in the conduct of the war. In fact, nor were they effectively utilized to
crush colonial resistance. To a large extent, however, the British military operation
was inspired by the Loyalist presence. Having in effect abandoned New England, the
British government decided to carry the war to the middle states and the southern
areas, which they were confident, would rally in support of Redcoats (the British
soldiers). Except for an unsuccessful attempt in the year 1776 to capture the southern
port of Charleston, the British for the next few years largely confined their efforts to
the middle states. Thereafter the main theatre of operations was in the south.
In the Battle for New York the British won all the opening engagements. Admiral Lord
Richard Howe and General William Howe, conducting a successful amphibious
operation on long Island in August, 1776, quickly routed the American defenders at
Brooklyn Heights. But he allowed Washington to withdraw his main army across the
East River to Manhattan. New York City quickly fell, forcing Washington to pull back
his forces into Westchester and, after an inconclusive stand at White Plants, to retreat
across New Jersey. As the year 1776 was coming to an end and enlistment time was
running out, Washington decided in desperation to strike a blow while he still had an

34
army. He surprised the hessians at Trenton and defeated the British in a night march
to Princeton. His nine-day campaign rid all but easternmost New Jersey of Redcoats
and gave sinking America morale an incomparable boost.
The Patriot victories at Trenton and Princeton did not break the hold of the British on
the middle states. Under a plan drawn up by General John Burgoyne in February,
1777, the British hoped to isolate New England by a three-pronged attack. A main
army moved southward down Lake Champlain and the upper Hudson River. A second
force operated through the Mohawk Valley from Oswego. Both the armies were to be
reinforced by a strong contingent dispatched up the Hudson form Howe’s New York
City base. A wonderful plan on paper, everything went wrong with it in execution.
Howe decided to attack Philadelphia in impractical belief that he could take the seat of
the Congress and return in time to execute his role in the Burgoyne plan. Burgoyne
himself suffered a series of setbacks. His auxiliary force from port Oswego was
repulsed by the Americans, a raiding party into Vermont was trounced there by
General John Stark. The overcautious Sir Henry Clinton in command of the New York
garrison moved too late and with far too little to reach Burgoyne at Saratoga. There,
blocked by the army of General Horatio Gates, Burgoyne surrendered his entire force,
bringing the war in the north to an end. While Burgoyne’s grand scheme was
collapsing, Howe managed to take Philadelphia, repulsing Washington’s army at
Germantown but failing to capture or destroy it. In May, 1778, however, Philadelphia
had to be evacuated on news that a French naval expedition was headed for America.
The disastrous middle-states campaign was followed by a new southern campaign
which had as its initial objectives Georgia and then South Carolina. In 1778
Charleston capitulated to British besiegers and the Redcoats soon thought the rest of
the state to heel. However, here too the tide turned the Patriots completely enveloped
the Tory forces at king’s Mountain a short distance from the boundary line between
North and South Carolina thereby riding North Carolina to Tory influence. This victory
coincided with the appointing to the southern Patriots command of General Nathanael
Greene. He despatched General Dan Morgan to reduce the British outpost on western
South Carolina while he himself went to bolster the partisan forces led by Francis
Marion and Thomas Sumter, then operating in the north-central part of the state,
Morgan crushed the British at Cowpens in January, 1871. In March of the same year
Greene clashed at Guilford Courthouse with the forces of Lord Cornwallis. Cornwallis
kept the field but at the expense of one-fourth of his army.
a. Diplomatic Relations with Non-British Powers
The American Revolution posed novel issues in diplomacy. A cluster of colonies which
had defined their monarch sought recognition as independent states from other

35
nations, which were ruled by monarchs and supported the principle of kingly
authority. In addition to seeking recognition, the insurgent Americans counted on
obtaining financial and military assistance from England’s traditional enemies. In
November, 1775, Congress had set up a five-man Committee of secret Correspondence
to make contact with “friends” abroad. The first prospective friend was France. Still
nursing her wounds from the Seven Years War, France had most at stake in the
weakening of British power. In various underground operations Silas Deane of
Connecticut Joined shortly thereafter by Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee, secured
French aid – military and equipment clothing, blankets and above all cash. The kings
of France and Spain secretly put up 2,000,000 livers to subsidize private company to
carry on these operations. In addition, the Americans commissioners were supplanted
by a single man, the internationally renowned Benjamin Franklin. Franklin used his
unique talents as a propagandist to win friends for America abroad.
The alliance with France however came not as a result of American pressure but as a
consequence of the American victory at Saratoga. Fearful that the British government
was about to come to terms with the Americans, the French entered into a treaty of
alliance with the United State (America) on February 6, 1778. The treaty bound both
parties not to make a separate treaty with a common enemy without the consent of
other. In the spring of 1779 Spain came into the war on the side of France, when
England refused to cede Gibraltar. But Spain made it clear that she was not fighting
for the independence of the United State. Finally, the United Provinces, which had
provided the United States with an immense quantity of military stores, was dragged
into the conflict late in 1780, when England declared war against the Dutch. By that
date the Americans Revolution had become a world war, waged not only in continental
North America but also in Gibraltar, in the English Channel in India, and off the
African coast. It was fought for national objectives quite different and distinct from
Americans independence.
3.5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Both sides were war-weary by 1780, and looked hopefully to foreign mediation. Austria
and Russia proposed to force a true upon all the parties and impose a settlement
based on the military status quo. Had their diplomacy succeeded, Maine, New York
City, and most of the Carolinas and Georgia would have remained part of the British
Empire and a united nation might never be achieved. However, the news of Yorktown
put an end to these complicated backstairs intrigues and hardened the move in
England for a quick peace. On March 4, 1782, the House of Commons resolved to
consider as enemy of king and country all those who should further attempt to carry

36
on the war. Two weeks later Lord North’s ministry resigned. The new government was
first headed by the Marquess of Rockingham and after his death, on July 1, by Lord
Shelburne. Congress named as its peace commissioners: Benjamin Franklin, John Jay
of New York, John Adams, and Henry Laurens of South Carolina. By the treaty of
November 30, 1782, which was confirmed by the definitive treaty of September 3,
1783 subsequently, the United State secured recognition of its independence. This
treaty further supported its claims to the Mississippi as its western boundary.
a. Political Consequences: As a war of independence or an anti-colonial
revolution, the American Revolution came officially to an end with the signing
and ratification of the definitive peace. But as a movement of internal political
and social reform the years of the Revolution marked merely the beginning of a
long period of innovation. A new constitutional system was established based
on the principle on consent of the governed. All the states with the exception of
Connecticut and Rhode Island, which were satisfied with their liberal colonial
charters, adopted constitutions which attested this principle. Indeed,
Massachusetts went one step further when it submitted its constitutional draft
to the people of ratification. Although they drew heavily on the colonial
charters, the state constitutions reflected revolutionary experience in several of
their aspects. The powers of the governor were diminished, the power of the
legislature enhanced. And the incorporation into the Virginia constitution of
1776 of a Bill of rights, which also served as a model for the most of the
constitutions that followed, as well as the first Ten Amendments to the federal
Constitutions, proved to be path breaking development.
b. Economic Consequences: The social and economic changes inspired by the
American Revolution were less revolutionary but important. Thus, Tory estate
confiscated not to create a peasant free-holding class but to punished Loyalist
and to raise funds desperately needed for the war effort. Although much of the
land eventually came into the hands of former tenants and small farmers, the
initial purchase was often made by wealthy speculators. Some of the states
cancelled the debits owing to Tory and British merchants. In Virginia, where
the indebtedness of tobacco planters to British businessmen was massive, the
struggle took on the character of a class conflict of creditors versus debtors.
c. Social Consequences: One of the major areas of revolutionary reform was that
of property law. Entail and primogeniture were abolished. It had been argued
that the egalitarian effects of these reforms did not amount to much, since
most southern planters made ample provision for younger children in their
wills, and legal devices already existed for breaking entail. Yet to a legal
37
 reformer like Thomas Jefferson the revision of the property laws was central to
the reform of a society, whose egalitarianism was based on land. In other areas
such as the disestablishment of the Church of England, the extension of
religious tolerance, and the reform of the criminal law, the Revolution can be
shown to have created a climate that encouraged reform and innovation.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Who were the Redcoats?
Answer.

b. Who was Benjamin Franklin?

Answer.

3.6. Summary
The American Revolution differed from those that followed (e.g., the French Revolution,
the Russian Revolution, etc) in its wake. It was a civil was without being a clear-cut
class was. The patriot cause found recruits in all classes and economic groups, but
members of the very same groups were numbered among the Loyalists. Even many
poor tenant farmers and frontiersmen remained loyal to Great Britain. The American
Revolutions stands in notable contradiction to the French Revolution in that the
former was accomplished without the seizure of power by extremists, without resort to
dictatorship, and without that violent reaction that has come to be known as the
Thermidor. However, the American Revolution was not a clear-cut class struggle; but
it did involve far-reaching-democratic reforms. Self-government was inaugurated,
which was also relatively democratic government, and the egalitarian principals had
been central to the American revolutionary ideology.
3.7. REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - C/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
 Stavrianos, L. S., (1965), The World Since 1500, Prentice Hall of India: Delhi.

38
3.8. FURTHER READINGS
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
3.9. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Discuss the causes of American Revolution.
2. How British control over the American governance caused American
Revolution? Discuss.
3. Discuss the consequences of American Revolution in detail.

*****

39
 Chapter 4

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 1789: CAUSES AND

IMPACT; NAPOLEON BONAPARTE: REFORM AND HIS
CONTINENTAL SYSTEM.

Structure
4.0. Objectives
4.1. Introduction
4.2. French Revolution: Causes
4.3. Impacts of the French Revolution
4.4. Napoleon Bonaparte
a. Reforms under Napoleon Bonaparte
b. Napoleon’s continental system
4.5. Summary
4.6. References
4.7. Further Readings
4.8. Model Questions
4.0. OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the nature of French Revolution
 Acquire information about the impacts of French Revolution
 Gain knowledge regarding Napoleon Bonaparte’s reforms
 Understand the key features of Napoleon’s continental system
4.1. INTRODUCTION
In 1789, one European out of every five lived in France. And most European, French
or not, who thought beyond the boundaries of their own immediate concerns,
perceived of France as the centre of European civilization. It followed, therefore that a
revolution in France would immediately command the attention of Europe, and would
from the first assume far more than mere national significance. Yet the French
Revolution attracted and disturbed men and women for reasons other than the fact
that it was French. Both its Philosophical ideals and its political realities mirrored
attitudes, concerns and conflicts that had occupied the minds of Europeans for
40
several decades. When the revolutionaries pronounced in favour of liberty, they spoke
not only with the voice of the eighteenth-century philosophers, but with those of the
English aristocracy in 1688 and the American revolutionaries of 1776. Absolutism was
the bane of continental noblemen, who jealously wanted to preserve their freedom
from expanding monarchical authority at their expense. Expansion of monarch’s
authority also impacted the merchants. Across Europe, monarch, nobility and the
middle class confronted each other in uneasy hostilities that varied in intensity, but
reflected common mistrust and uncertainty.
4.2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: CAUSES
The French Revolution was not a single event. Rather, it was a series of developments,
which stretched over a number of years. It was a sustained period of uncertainty,
disorder and conflict, reverberating far beyond the borders of France. It began between
1787 and 1789. Following are the causes responsible for the French revolution.
a. Financial crisis: The crisis was triggered by King Louis XVI’s attempts to avoid
bankruptcy. Over the eighteenth century, France had fought three great wars
on a worldwide scale. Following the examples and achievements of Louis XIV
(1643-1715), the French kings went into war with the Great Britain. The
British and the French fought almost uninterruptedly throughout the 1740s
and 1750s. In the Seven Years War (1756-63) the results were disastrous.
Despite alliances with Russia and Austria, Louis XV (1715-74)’s armies were
humiliated by the Prussian armies. At sea, the British destroyed both the
Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets, drove French power out of India and North
America, and disrupted the trade of the French Caribbean. Not only was the
defeat shameful, the war also left the French kingdom burdened with a
colossal debt. In the 1770s, the colonists of British North America declared
their independence, and France along with its allies went into war in 1778 with
British to support the colonists. The British lost the war and American
colonists gained freedom; but the French made no territorial gains, when the
peace treaty was signed in 1783. Even the Americans preferred to trade with
the British and showed no favour for the French. In spite of having being
successful against the British, the French king failed to get any financial gain
from the American wars. This war was financed by borrowing money and it
thus proved disastrous to the French economy. By 1786 a foreseeable decline
in tax revenues and the scheduled repayment of short-term war loans caused a
financial crisis. By 1789, a wider crisis had precipitated in different orders of

41
 the ancien regime of the France, and these all collectively contributed in
causing the French revolution.
b. Weak and inefficient ruler: The French revolution took place in the reign of
Louis XVI (1774-1789), who possessed neither the talents of administrative
ability and personal determination and vision to tackle the people’s discontent.
He was well-intentioned but dull-witted and ineffectual monarch. He was far
more devoted to his hobbies, for instance, hunting than to the business of
absolutist kingship. He dismissed his extremely talented finance minister,
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) due to the pressure of nobility and it
halted the much needed economic reforms. From that time, national policy
traced an unstable course, uncontrolled by the king and influenced by self-
interested countries. Like his predecessors, Louis XVI failed to carry forward
the centralisation of administration and faced a severe resistance from French
nobility. When Louis XVI had pressed for new taxes to be levied on the nobility
as well as the rest of the community after the expensive Seven Years War, the
parlements successfully blocked the proposal and its members insisted upon
their rights to exemption from major national taxes. There were 13 parlements
that looked after the administration of different parts of France. A parlements
were supreme or sovereign courts of appeals, where registration was required
for all important royal legislation before it became operative. Before registering,
the parlements had the power to send the king remonstrance pointing out
flaws or drawbacks in the new laws. However, the king could override these
concerns of parlements; but he failed to resist.
c. Social crisis: The French kingdom had been built up over many centuries by a
gradual and often haphazard process of conquest and dynastic accumulation,
and successive kings had won the obedience of their new subjects more by
confirming their distinct institutions than by imposing a preferred pattern of
their own. The French society, divided into three estates (sections, i.e., first
estate: Clergy, second estate: Nobility and third estate: Peasantry along with
traders and craftsmen), was based on an age old system that is known as the
ancien regime. The most powerful groups in ancien regime was of the clergy,
which constituted a vast Church corporation/institution that drew revenues
from a tenth of the kingdom’s land, and creaming off, in the form of taxes like
tithes, a notional tenth of the yield of the rest. It paid no direct taxes on the
grounds that it performed its service to society by praying and interacting with
God. But, there was tension within the Roman Catholic Church, the so-called
first estate of the ancien regime.
42
Its members- bishops, archbishops, and cardinals- were in the main
recruited from the aristocracy. They enjoyed large incomes, derived from
property that had been willed to the Church over the centuries and that the
Church continued to claim-successfully-was exempt from taxation by the
state. In addition, the church collected a tax – the tithe – on all land under
cultivation, an average of between one-tenth and one-fifteenth of the
annual harvest. Income from both properties the tithe was inequitably
distributed among the ranks of the clergy. The princes of the church along
with the leading monastic orders took the lion’s share. Parish priest
received very little. This imbalance in the distribution of revenues was
resented not only by the priests, but by peasants’ tithe payers, who hated
to see their taxes spent to support a distant and haughty ecclesiastical
hierarchy, rather their own, often very deserving, local clergy.
The second major section of the French society was nobility, the social elite
which owned over a quarter of the land and levied feudal dues over much of
the rest. It also resisted the payment of direct taxes and claimed traditional
privileges. Both the clergy and nobility, in spite of being rich and
resourceful, avoided the payment of direct taxes to the royal treasury, and
they shifted the burden of taxes on the third section of the French society:
peasantry. Evidence indicates that between 1787 and 1789 the
unemployment rate in many parts of urban France was as high as 50
percent. The financial despair produced by this unemployment fuelled
resentment and turned peasants and urban workers into potential
revolutionaries. The ranks of the aristocracy, France’s second estate, were
also divided. Many determined reformers were themselves noblemen, but
they were nobles of the robe, men who had, often by purchase, acquired
administrative or judicial office (hence the “robe”) which conferred a title of
nobility, as well as the opportunity to amass a substantial fortune in land
and other property.
In contrast to this group stood the nobles of the sword – or noblesse de
race, as the group enjoyed calling itself – whose title extended back to the
middle ages. These aristocrats regarded the nobles of the robe as upstarts.
In general, they lived at the royal court at Versailles, where they enjoyed
making political mischief, leaving the management of their estate to bailiffs.
In 1781, they pressed successfully for a law which restricted the sale of
military commission to men whose aristocratic linage extended back at
least four generations. If they could not prevent the general debasing of
43
 their order, they reasoned, they could be at least ensuring that the army
remained their preserve. The tensions between the nobles of the robe and
the sword kept aristocracy fragmented and at odds with itself, and hence
unable to form together into anything more than a negative and potentially
destructive force.
The disdain of the noblesse de race for the nobility of the robe was mild
compared with the contempt in which haughty aristocrats held the urban
middle orders. This large group was by no means homogenous and it
included: government officials, talented professional and large-scale
financiers and merchants. Movement from the upper ranks of the third
estate into the nobility had been possible in the past for wealthy, ambitious
members of the middle orders. The appointment or purchase of position –
the route favoured by nobles of the robe – or the marriage of a wealthy
financier’s daughter to the son of an impoverished aristocrat were the most
common means of advancement. Yet to increasing numbers of the urban
bourgeoisie it appeared by about 1780 that the nobility of the sword was
more determined than ever to turn back their advances.
Their discontent would not have been so great had their birth and position
within the third estate not excluded them from participation in the political
life of the nation. No matter how much money a merchant, manufacturer,
banker, or lawyer might acquire, he was still excluded from political
privileges. He had almost no influence at the court; he could not hold high
political office; and except in the choice orders achieved affluence and
greater self-esteem, their members were bound to resent such
discrimination. Resentment of the aristocracy on the part of the urban
bourgeoisie was dwarfed by the hatred rural peasant felt for their
aristocratic overloads. Those peasants who owned property, as well as
those who worked the land as tenant-farmers or labourers, remained
obliged in various ways to both the clergy and the nobility: a tithe and levy
on landlord’s facilities – a mill, a wine press; fees, as well, to the nobility
when land changed hands. In addition, peasants were forced to pay a
disproportionate share of both direct and direct taxes – levied by the
government.
d. Intellectual stimulation: No event as all-encompassing as the French
revolution occurs in an intellectual vacuum. The political theories of Locke,
Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Condorcet appealed to both discontented
nobility and bourgeoisie: Voltaire, because of his general execration of the
44
 privileged institutions of church and absolute monarchy; Condorcet
because of his belief in progress; Locke and Montesquieu because of their
defence of private property and limited sovereignty. The theories of one
thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), played an important role in
shaping the ideas and attitudes of French revolutionaries. The most
significant of his writings on politics were: Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality (1753) and Social Contract (1762). According to Rousseau, society
had its origins in a state of nature (a virtual paradise); but evil arose due to
quarrels over property rights and resultant social as well as economic
inequality. To ensure general security, therefore, a civil society was
established in which individuals surrendered their rights to the community.
This change was accomplished by a social contract, in which each person
agreed to submit to the will of the majority. In the state that then emerged,
citizens were levelled by their contract into democratic equality. These
theories guided the people, who lead the French revolution.
4.3. IMPACTS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
a. End of Ancien Regime: The Oath of the Tennis Court (June 20, 1789) was the
first event that marked the beginning of the French Revolution. In May 1789,
the king Louis XIV called together the Estates General, representative of the
three estates of the realm. Shortly after the beginning of the meeting of the
Estates General at Versailles, the representatives of the third estate took a
revolutionary step of leaving the meeting and declaring themselves the National
Assembly. The National Assembly took an oath in the Tennis Court of
Versailles that they would not separate until they had drafted a new
constitution for France. Thus the National Assembly not only protested against
the king Louis XVI but also claimed the highest sovereign power in the nation.
Due to a fear of counter-revolution by the French king and aristocracy, the
people of Paris stormed the fortress of Bastille (July 14, 1789) to obtain arms
in order to defend themselves. In a similar manner, peasants in countryside in
the month of July and August attacked the houses of feudal lords and
destroyed the revenue records; the same was the fate of monasteries and
residences of bishops. The nobles were murdered and their treasuries were
looted. In a one go, the traditional taxes (tithes and Corvee, i.e., forced labour),
privileges (right to hunting) and serfdom were ended.
b. Promulgation of Fundamental Rights: The next major development was the
Declaration of the Rights of Man (September, 1789). According to it, property

45
 was declared to be a natural right as well as liberty, security, and ‘resistance to
oppression’. Freedom of speech, religious toleration, and liberty of the press
were declared inviolable. All citizens were guaranteed equality of treatment in
the courts. No one was to be imprisoned or otherwise punished except in
accordance with due process of law. Sovereignty was affirmed to reside in the
people, and officers of the government were made subject to deposition if they
abused the powers conferred upon them.
c. Secularisation of Church: In September, 1789, the Clergy was stripped off its
power and resources; it was decided that all bishops and priests should be
elected by people and should be subject to the authority of the state. Their
salaries were to be paid out of the public treasury. Later, in 1794 the Church
and state were separated and it was accepted that religion was a private matter
and all beliefs not actually hostile to the government would be tolerated.
d. End of French Absolutism: In the year 1791, the National Assembly drafted a
new constitution for the nation. The government was converted into a limited
monarchy and all citizens were given the civil rights; but right to vote was
given only to those who paid a certain amount in tax. The king was deprived of
the control over the army and local governments. Even the powers of nobility
were curtailed. In support of the French king both Austria and Prussia
declared war against France, and the revolutionaries took this opportunity to
declare France a republic. Resultantly, the king Louis XVI was put on trial and
executed in January 1793. It was an end of the French absolutism and
monarchy. On the other hand, the revolutionary government managed to
protect French territories and defeated the invading armies.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Who was Louis XVI?
Answer.

b. Explain the term ‘ancien regime’.

Answer.

c. Who wrote the book, Social Contract?

Answer.

46
 d. Write a note on Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Answer.

4.4. NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

Few men in Indian history have compelled the attention of the world as Napoleon
Bonaparte (1769-1821) did during the fifteenth years of his rule in France. Schooled in
France and at the military academy in Paris, he possessed a mind congenial to the
ideas of the enlightenment – creative, imaginative, and ready to perceive things anew.
His primary interests were history, law and mathematics. His particular strengths as a
leader lay in his ability to conceive of financial, legal, or military plans and then to
master their every detail; his capacity for inspiring others, even those initially opposed
him. He believed in himself as the destined saviour of the French. That last conviction
eventually became the obsession that led to Napoleon’s undoing. But supreme self-
confidence was just what the French government had lacked since the first days of the
revolution. Napoleon believed both in himself and in France. That latter belief was the
tonic France needed in the troubled years of revolution.
a. Reforms under Napoleon Bonaparte
During the years from 1799 to 1804, Napoleon ruled the France under the title of first
consul, but in reality, as a dictator. And he introduced several reforms that continued
some of the ideal and demands of the French Revolution:
 Constitutional Reforms: Once again, France was given new constitution under
him. Though the document spoke of universal male suffrage, political power
was retained in the hands of middle-class entrepreneurs and professionals.
Recognizing, however, that his regime would derive additional substance if it
could be made to appear the government of the people of France, Bonaparte
instituted what has since become a common authoritarian device: the
plebiscite. The voters were asked to approve the new constitution and did so by
the loudly proclaimed vote of 3,011,107 in favour and 1567 opposed.
 Administrative Reforms: Bonaparte promoted centralisation of administration
and kept the revolutionary spirit alive by confirming the abolition of ancien
regime (division of society into three estates), aristocratic privileges and local
liberties (granted to landlords/feudal lords). It benefitted the middle class,
which not could compete with the erstwhile aristocracy in professional
activities. Through centralization, Bonaparte introduced an orderly and

47
 generally fair system of taxation. He replaced the elected officials and local self-
government instituted in 1789 with centrally appointed “prefects” and “sub-
prefects” whose administrative duties were defined in Paris, where local
government policy was made as well.
 Education Reforms: Napoleon’s most significant accomplishment was his
completion of the educational and legal reforms began during the revolutionary
period. He ordered the establishment of lycées (high school) in every major town
and a school in Paris for the training of teacher. To supplement these changes,
Napoleon brought the military and technical schools under the state control
and founded a national university to exercise supervision over the entire
system. Like almost all his reforms, this one proved of particular benefits to the
middle class.
 Legal Reforms: The new legal code was promulgated in 1810. The code
Napoleon, as the new body of law was called under him in France reflected two
principles which had threaded their way through all the constitutional changes
since 1789: uniformity and individualism. The code made French law uniform,
declaring past customs and privileges forever abolished. The new code
established a private individual’s right to property. In addition, new methods for
the drafting of contracts, leases, and stock companies were instituted. And
trade unions were prohibited. Thus these new codes of law worked to the
benefit of individually minded entrepreneurs and businessmen.
To accomplish these reforms Napoleon called upon the most talented men available to
him, regardless of their past political affiliations. Napoleon’s 1801 concordat with the
pope reunited Church and state. Though the action disturbed former anti-Church
revolutionaries, Napoleon believed the reconciliation of Church and state necessary for
reason both of domestic harmony and of international solidarity. According to the
terms of the concordat, the pope received the right to depose French bishops and to
discipline the French clergy. At the same time, the Vatican agreed to lay to rest any
claims against the expropriation of former Church lands. Hereafter, that property
would remain unchallenged in the hands of its new middle-class rural and urban
proprietors. In return, the clergy was guaranteed an income from the state. The
concordat did nothing to revoke the principle of religious freedom established by the
revolution. Although the Roman Catholic clergy received state money, so did
protestant clergy. Napoleon’s agreement won him the support of those conservatives
who had feared for France’s future as a godless state. By 1802 the people of France
were prepared to accept him as “consul for life”, and soon in 1804, they rejoiced when,
in the cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris, he crowned himself Emperor Napoleon Ⅰ.
48
 b. Napoleon’s continental system
Under Napoleon’s reign, the territories of central Europe underwent a revolution. This
revolution was a thorough governmental reorganization, one which imposed the major
egalitarian reforms of the French revolution upon lands outsides the borders of
France, while building a French empire. Most affected were territories in Italy,
Germany and Holland. Into all these territories Napoleon introduced a carefully
organized, deliberate system of administration, based upon the notion of careers open
to talent, equality before the law, and the abolition of ancient customs and privileges.
The Napoleonic program of reform in the empire represented an application of the
principles that had already transformed post-revolutionary France. Manorial courts
were liquidated, and Church courts abolished. Province were joined into an enormous
bureaucratic network that reached directly back to Paris. Laws were codified, the tax
system modernized, and everywhere individuals were freed to work at whatever trade
they chose. The one freedom denied throughout this new grand hegemony was that of self-
government, i.e., all governmental direction emanated from Paris, and therefore from
Napoleon. Despite that fact, middle-class businessmen and professional men, who had
chafed against restrictions, welcomed this chance to exercise their talents to a fuller
degree than they had ever before enjoyed.
Napoleon’s motives in introducing these various radical changes were by no means
altruistic. He understood that the defence of his enormous domain depended on
efficient administration and the rational collection and expenditure of funds for his
armies. His boldest attempt at consolidation, however, a policy forbidding the
importation into the continent of British goods, proved a failure. This “continental
system,” established in 1806, was designed as a strategic measure in Napoleon’s
continuing economic war against Britain. Its purpose was to destroy Britain’s
commerce and credit – to starve it economically into surrender. The system failed for
several reasons. Foremost was the fact that throughout the war Britain retained
control of the seas. The British naval blockade of the continent that was implemented
in 1807 served as an effective counter to Napoleon’s system. While the empire
laboured to transport goods and raw material overland to avoid the British blockade,
the British worked with success to develop a lively trade with South America. Internal
tariffs were a second reason for the failure of the system. Napoleon was unable to
persuade individual territories to join a tariff-free customs union. As a result, Europe
remained divided into economic camps, fortified against each other by tariffs, and at
odd with each other as they attempted to subsist on nothing more than what the
continent could produce and manufacture. The final reason for the system’s collapse

49
was the fact that the continent had more to lose than Britain. Under Napoleon, trade
stagnated. On the other hand, ports and manufacturing centres grumbled as
unemployment rose. The continental system was Napoleon’s first serious mistake, and
it was one of the causes of his ultimate downfall.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Who was Napoleon Bonaparte?
Answer.

b. Explain the term, Lycées.

Answer.

c. Why Napoleon considered reconciliation of Church and state necessary?

Answer.

d. When was “continental system” established in Europe?

Answer.

4.5. SUMMARY
The French revolution that started a process of change in French polity and society
resulted in the establishment of Napoleon Bonaparte as the emperor of France.
However, the erstwhile absolutist French monarchy ended and so was the case with
the ancien regime that had divided the French society into nobility, clergy and others
(peasantry and urban bourgeoisie). Not only France, but entire Europe witnessed the
rise of middle and lower classes against the medieval feudal system in the troubled
years of French Revolution. One of the major consequences of the revolution was the
recognition of individual right of liberty and equality. Even Napoleon Bonaparte kept
the spirit of the French Revolution alive and endorsed: uniformity and individualism.
4.6. REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - B/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.

50
  Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
4.7. FURTHER READINGS
 Doyle, William, (2001), The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
4.8. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:

1. Discuss the causes of French Revolution.

2. Write an essay on the ‘ancien regime’.
3. Analyse the impacts of French Revolution.
4. Discuss the reforms of Napoleon Bonaparte.
5. Write an essay on Napoleon’s continental system.

******

51
 Chapter 5

CONGRESS OF VIENNA: MOTIVES, WORKING,

PRINCIPLES, PROVISIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Structure
5.0. Objectives
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Congress of Vienna 1815: Motives and Functioning
a. Tsar Alexander-Ⅰ (1801-1825)
b. Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859)
5.3. Congress of Vienna: Principles and Provisions
a. Legitimacy
b. Restoration
c. Compensation
5.3. Significance of the Congress of Vienna
5.4. Summary
5.5. References
5.6. Further Readings
5.7. Model Questions
5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the consequences of the Napoleonic Wars
 Acquire information about the Congress of Vienna
 Gain knowledge regarding the principles and provisions of the Congress of
Vienna
 Understand how the Congress of Vienna impacted the European powers
5.1. INTRODUCTION
The Congress of Vienna took place after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, who lost his
final battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, and subsequently, he was shipped off to the
bleak island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic. One a mighty emperor of France and
most of Western Europe, Bonaparte was exiled from his own homeland and he lived

52
out a dreary existence until his death in 1821. However, his administrative and legal
reforms remained in place even after his fall. The Napoleonic legal code persisted not
only in France but also in several parts of Europe (e.g., Prussia, and various parts of
German states). The institutions introduced during his reign, for instance, centralised
bureaucracy, police and educational systems became part of the machinery of
government and society in many parts of the 19 th century Europe. The three concepts,
viz., liberty, equality and nationality, became the ideas that shaped the laws and a
new way of life in modern Europe. In spite of Napoleon’s fall, his military expeditions
had disrupted the political boundaries of the Western Europe and therefore, the
European powers came together at Vienna to redraw the map of Europe in 1814-1815.
5.2 CONGRESS OF VIENNA 1815: MOTIVES AND FUNCTIONING
The main objective was to provide a long term peace plan for Europe by resolving the
issues that have cropped up due to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
The European powers that met at the congress of Vienna in 1814 to draw up a
permanent peace settlement for Europe laboured to produce an agreement that would
as nearly as possibly guarantee international tranquillity. In addition, they were by no
means unwilling to advance the claims of their own countries to new territories.
Although the principal decision of the congress was made by representatives of the
major powers, it was attended by an array of dignitaries from almost all the
principalities of Europe. No fewer than six monarchs attended: The Tsar of Russia; the
emperor of Austria; the king of Prussia; the king of Denmark; the king of Bavaria and
the king of Wurttemberg. Great Britain was represented by Lord Castlereagh and the
duke of Wellington. From France came the subtle intriguer Talleyrand, who had served
as a bishop under Louis ⅩⅤⅠ, and also as foreign minister at the court of Napoleon.
However, the dominant role at the Congress of Vienna was played by Tsar Alexander Ⅰ
and by the Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859).
a. Tsar Alexander-Ⅰ (1801-1825): The dynamic Tsar is one of the most baffling
figures in history. Reared at the court of Catherine the great, he imbibed the
doctrines of Rousseau from French Jacobin tutor. In 1801 he succeeded his
murdered father, Paul, as Tsar and for the next two decades distributed the
dreams of his fellow sovereigns by becoming the most liberal monarch in
Europe. After the defeat of Napoleon in the Russian campaign, Alexander’s
mind turned more and more to mystical channels. He conceived of a mission to
convert the rulers of all countries to the Christian ideals of justice and peace.
But the chief effect of his voluble expression of devotion to “liberty” and

53
 “enlightenment” was to frighten conservatives into suspecting a plot to extend
his power over all of Europe.
b. Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859): The most commanding figure at the
congress was Metternich, born at Coblenz in the Rhine valley, where his father
was Austrian ambassador at the courts of three small German states. As the
student at the University of Strasburg the young Metternich witnessed mob
violence connected with the outbreak of the French revolution, and to this he
attributed his life-long hatred of political innovation. He had been active in
fermenting discord between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander, after two became
allies in 1807, and had played some part in arranging the marriage of Napoleon
to the Austrian archduchess, Marie Louise. At the Congress of Vienna, he
attempted at every turn to arrange international affairs with equal neatness, to
suit his own diplomatic designs. His two great obsessions were hatred of
political and social change and fear of Russia. Above all, he feared revolution
inspired by the tsar for the sake of establishing Russian supremacy in Europe.
For this reason, he favoured moderate terms for France in its hour of defeat,
and was ready at one time to sponsor the restoration of Napoleon as emperor of
the French under the protection and over lordship of the Habsburg monarchy.
Representatives began to arrive in Vienna toward the end of September 1814. All of
Europe sent its most-important statesmen. Klemens, prince von Matternich, principal
minister of Austria, represented his emperor, Francis II. Tsar Alexander I of Russia
directed his own diplomacy. King Frederick William III of Prussia had Karl, prince von
Hardenberg, as his principal minister. Great Britain was represented by its foreign
minister, Viscount Castlereagh. When Castlereagh had to return to his parliamentary
duties, the duke of Wellington replaced him, and Lord Clancarty was principal
representative after the duke’s departure. The restored Louis XVIII of France sent
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand. Spain, Portugal, and Sweden had only men of
moderate ability to represent them. Many of the rulers of the minor states of Europe
put in an appearance. With them came a host of courtiers, secretaries, and ladies to
enjoy the magnificent social life of the Austrian court. Assisting Metternich as host,
Friedrich Gentz played a vital role in the management of the protocol and in the
secretarial organization of the congress. The social side of the congress was, in fact,
one of the causes of the long and unexpected delay in producing a result, for
Metternich at least sometimes subordinated business to pleasure.
The procedure of the congress was determined by the difficulty and complexity of the
issues to be solved. First there was the problem of the organization of the congress, for

54
which there was no precedent. The “four” were determined to keep the management of
the main problems entirely in their own hands, but since they had rather rashly
summoned a congress, they had to pay some attention to it. Thus, the ministers of
Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain assembled early for discussions and finally
agreed, on September 22, 1814, that the “four” should be those to decide the future of
all the conquered territories. They were then to communicate their decisions to France
and Spain. The full congress was to be summoned only when all was ready.
Such was the situation that Talleyrand found when he arrived on September 24. He
refused to accept it and was supported by Spain’s representative, the marquees de
Labrador. Talleyrand denied that either the “four” or the “six” (including France and
Spain) was a legally constituted body and desired that the congress should be
summoned to elect a directing committee. If any other body had rights in the matter, it
was the group of powers—Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Spain, and
Portugal—that had signed the 1814, Treaty of Paris with France (thus, the “eight”),
which ended the Napoleonic Wars for the first time. The core four were much
disturbed, knowing that the smaller powers would support Talleyrand if they gave him
the chance of appealing to them. They had no intention of giving way, however, and
refused to summon a meeting of all the representatives. The opening of the congress
was postponed until November 1. No solution could be found, however, and after a
meeting of the “eight” on October 30, the opening was again postponed.
Meanwhile, work proceeded without the sanction of the main body of
plenipotentiaries. The “four” discussed the main territorial problems informally among
themselves. The “eight” assumed the formal direction of the congress; a committee of
German states met to draw up a constitution for Germany, and a special committee on
Switzerland was appointed by the “four.” Talleyrand was thus excluded from the main
work of the congress, but his protests on behalf of the smaller powers grew fainter as
he realized that the “four” were not in agreement; Castlereagh and Metternich
gradually won his confidence and at last insisted on Bourbon France’s being admitted
to the core group. It was that committee of five that was the real Congress of Vienna.
Between January 7 and February 13, 1815, it settled the frontiers of all territories
north of the Alps Mountains and laid the foundations for the settlement of Italy.
Meanwhile, the committee of eight dealt with more-general matters. The congress as a
representative body of all Europe never met.

55
 Self Assessment questions.
a. Comment on the motives of the Congress of Vienna.
Answer.

b. Who was Tsar Alexander-I?

Answer.

c. Who was Klemens von Metternich?

Answer.

d. Mention the names of European powers that signed the Treaty of Paris
with France in 1814.
Answer.

5.3 CONGRESS OF VIENNA: PRINCIPLES AND PROVISIONS

Many emperors, foreign ministers and statesmen assembled at Vienna and carried on
deliberations during the winter of 1814-15. There was a lot of controversy among the
victors regarding the fate of Poland and Saxony. Prussia desired to annex the whole of
Saxony in exchange for the large amount of Polish territory she was surrendering to
Russia and Tsar Alexander “backed up” Prussia to the limit. Metternich refused to
allow Prussia so large an extension of the territory contiguous to Austria and
Castlereagh and Talleyrand (of France) stood with him. The difference went right up to
the brink of war. At the beginning of 1815, France, Austria and England formed a
defensive alliance to resist the claims of Russia and Prussia. This extreme step
produced the desired results. The Tsar was convinced that the other side would fight
rather than give way. The result was that he gave way on some points and Prussia
followed suit. Ultimately, Prussia secured only about half of Saxony. The part of
Talleyrand has been exaggerated to some extent. It is wrong to say that he created
differences between the allies. All that he was able to do was that he inflamed and
exploited the differences between the allies to the advantage of France. The result was
that all matters were already adjusted when the news came that Napoleon had run
away from the Island of Elba and Louis XVIII had left France. The work of the
Congress was completed after the overthrow of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815.

56
France was compelled to pay an indemnity of 700 million francs to the victorious
allies, but its boundaries were allowed to remain the same as it were in 1789. The
Vienna Settlement was based on three principles, viz., restoration, legitimacy and
compensation.
a. Legitimacy: The basic idea that guided the work of the Congress of Vienna was
the principle of legitimacy. This principle was invented by Talleyrand as a device
for protecting France against drastic punishment by its conquerors, but it was
ultimately adopted by Metternich as a convenient expression of the general
policy of reaction. Legitimacy meant that the dynasties of Europe that had
reigned in prerevolutionary days should be restored to their thrones, and that
each country should regain especially the same territories it had held in 1789.
In accordance with this principle Louis XVIII was recognized as the “legitimate”
sovereign of France.
b. Restoration: As regards the principle of restoration, it was decided to restore, as
far as possible, the boundaries and reigning families of the several European
countries as they were before the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon.
Napoleon had badly mutilated the political map of Europe. He had torn away
territories from some States and added them to other States to suit his
convenience. However, when he was overthrown in 1814 and sent to the Island
of Elba, the problem before the European statesmen was how the map of
Europe was to be redrawn. As Metternich had played the most important part
in the overthrow of Napoleon, Vienna was chosen as the venue of negotiations
and the settlement of Europe.
The principle of restoration was consistent with that of legitimacy which the
French statesman Talleyrand was exploiting in order to save France from
further territorial spoliation and to enable his defeated country to play an
important part in the deliberations of Europe. The Vienna Settlement restored
the Bourbons in Spain, Naples and Sicily. The House of Orange was restored in
Holland. The House of Savoy was restored in Piedmont and Sardinia. The Pope
was also restored with all his possessions in Italy. The various German princes
whose territories had been included by Napoleon in the Confederation of the
Rhine were also restored to their territories. The Swiss Confederation was also
restored. The Tyrol was restored to Austria. The right of Austria to the Austrian
Netherlands was recognised but she was allowed to exchange it for some other
territory.
c. Compensation: Britain received territories principally under French dominion in
South Africa and South America and the island of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and it
57
 immensely enhanced Britain’s commercial empire. During the Napoleonic wars,
Great Britain had captured the important Dutch colonies of Ceylon, Cape
Colony, South Africa and Guiana. Therefore, those colonies were confirmed to
her. However, with a view to compensating Holland and also to creating a
strong State on the northern frontier of France, the Austrian Netherlands were
given over to Holland. The King of Holland was made the King of the United
Netherlands. Austria was compensated for her loss of the Austrian Netherlands
and shot got Lombardy and Venetia in Italy. The members of the Hapsburg
family were put on the thrones of Tuscany, Parma and Modena. Finland and
Swedish Pomerania were taken away from Sweden and given to Russia and
Prussia respectively. Sweden was compensated in the form of Norway which
was taken away from Denmark. Denmark was punished on account of her
alliance with Napoleon for a long time.
Prussia also gained a great deal. She got back all the German territories which
had been taken away from her by Napoleon. Prussia was also given Swedish
Pomerania, two-fifths of Saxony, the whole of Westphalia and most of the
Rhineland. One of the reasons why Prussia was given these territories was that
it was intended to make Prussia a bulwark against France. However, the result
of these acquisitions was that Prussia became the leader of Germany. These
concessions added to her mineral resources and helped her to become a great
industrialized country. Prussia also became a purely German State by the
surrender of her Polish territory to Russia. With the object of maintaining the
balance of power and creating a ring round France, it was decided to enlarge
and strengthen the kingdom of Sardinia. To that kingdom, Savoy and Piedmont
were restored and Genoa was added.
Russia was allowed to retain Finland which she had conquered from Sweden.
She was also given Bessarabia which she had captured from the Turks. She
also got most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. England occupied Heligol and in
the North Sea, Malta and the Ionian Islands in the Mediterranean, Cape Colony
in South Africa, Ceylon and other islands. Austria-Hungary recovered her
Polish possessions. As compensation for the Austrian Netherlands given to
Holland, she got Lombardy and Venetia. She also got the Illyrian provinces
along the eastern coast of the Adriatic. Duchy of Parma was given to Maria
Louise, wife of Napoleon and an Austrian Princess. Princes connected with the
Austrian imperial family were restored to the throne of Modena and Tuscany.
As regards the settlement of Germany, it was decided not to restore all the petty States
which existed before the French Revolution. The principle of legitimacy was not
58
extended to the German principalities. There the great powers agreed to retain the
boundaries as had been redrawn by Napoleon. Fear of aggressive Russia led the other
European nations to support the maintenance as an anti-Russia bulwark of the
Napoleonic kingdoms of Bavaria, Wurttembuerg and Saxony. The Holy Roman Empire
had been abolished by Napoleon in 1806 and no attempt was made to revive it. It is
true that men like Stein advocated the unification of Germany under the supremacy of
a single Power, but Frederick William III did not show any keenness to become the
leader of Germany. On the other side, Metternich had also given a promise to the
Princes of South Germany that their sovereign rights would be protected. Neither
Prussia nor Austria nor the Princes of the small German States showed any
enthusiasm for a unified Germany and so the opportunity to create a united Germany
was lost. A loose German Confederation of 38 States was established. There was to be
a Diet at Frankfurt which was to consist of Delegates from the various sovereign
States of Germany. The Diet was to be presided over by the Chancellor of Austria.
Austria was given the right to send six Delegates to the Diet. All the States were not
given representation in it. The members were forbidden to enter into an alliance with a
foreign Power either against the Confederation as a whole or against a fellow-member.
Although the German Confederation was nominally guaranteed by all the European
Powers, in actual practice, Austria dominated her politics.
5.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA
In the name of legitimacy France was restored but she was hemmed in by the
Netherlands, Prussia and Sardinia. The leadership of Europe passed to Austria from
France. The Austrian acquisition made her a great power in Europe. Austria
dominated both Germany and Italy. Although the Austrian Emperor lost the title of the
Holy Roman Emperor, yet the control of Austria over Germany was complete. The Holy
Alliance of 1815 was the creation of Tsar Alexander I, who was a visionary, a mystic, a
man of moods and unstable imagination. Such a scheme had been put forward earlier
by Sully, the Minister of Henry IV of France, in his Grand Design. The object of the
Grand Design was “to deliver them forever from the fear of bloody catastrophes, so
common in Europe; to secure for them an unherdable repose so that all the princes
might henceforth live together as brothers.” It was intended to set up a General
Council or Senate consisting of 66 delegates from the different countries whose duty
was to settle disputes and maintain the peace of Europe. However, nothing came out
of it on account of the premature death of Henry of Navarre in 1610.
Tsar Alexander I was encouraged to put forward his scheme of the Holy Alliance on
account of his preponderant influence in Europe after the overthrow of Napoleon. He

59
also had liberal views on account of the influence of his Swiss tutor. What Alexander I
wanted was that the rulers of the European States should apply the principles of
Christianity in their dealings with one another. They were also to regard their subjects
as their children. He intended to spiritualise politics. To quote Alexander: “The present
act has no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed
resolution, both in the administration of their respective States and in their political
relations with every other government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of their
Holy religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christianity, Charity and Peace, which,
far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on
the counsels of princes and guide all their subjects, as being the only means of
consolidating human institutions, and remedying their imperfections.” It is to be noted
that the Holy Alliance was honoured more in its breach than observance. It is true
that Russia, Austria and Prussia made the required declaration but the declaration
was not observed in actual practice. The Holy Alliance was an attempt to apply the
principles of morality in the field of international diplomacy and to create the political
conscience of Europe but it failed in its objective. The Tsar did not succeed in
providing “the transparent soul of the Holy Alliance with the body” and the scheme
remained still-born. Great Britain refused to subscribe to the principle of the Holy
Alliance. According to Castlereagh, the Holy Alliance was “a piece of sublime
mysticism and non-sense.” Metternich looked upon it as “a loud-sounding nothing” or
“moral demonstration.”
To quote Metternich, “The Holy Alliance was merely a philanthropic aspiration clothed
in a religious garb.” “It was not an institution to keep down the right of the people, to
promote absolutism or any other tyranny. It was only the overflow of the pietistic
feeling and the Emperor Alexander’s application of Christian principles to politics.”
The practical importance of the Holy Alliance was negligible. Its principles were never
put into practice. However, the people of Europe confused the Holy Alliance with the
Quadruple Alliance and as the Quadruple Alliance was used for the purpose of
suppressing nationalism and liberalism everywhere in Europe, the Holy Alliance was
also condemned and was regarded as a symbol of reaction, a league of princes against
their peoples and a conspiracy against liberalism. However, the attitude of the various
European powers towards the Holy Alliance showed that there was no unanimity of
purpose among the European powers and there was every possibility of their falling
out if circumstances so required. Seaman says that the Holy Alliance “was an
important preservative of peace in Europe. For so long as it kept Austria, Russia and
Prussia together, peace was almost certain, and war, when it came, only partial. The
fact that the Holy Alliance had existed helped to prevent Prussia and Austria from
60
fighting against Russia in the Crimean War, and thus kept the conflict outside the
main European area, confining it to the Crimea, where nothing vital could be
destroyed and no essential changes be affected. However, it collapses by 1856 and a
new chapter in Europe’s history began then after.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Write a note on the principles of the Congress of Vienna.
Answer.

b. Who invented the principle of Legitimacy?

Answer.

c. Comment on the territories that Britain received in compensation.

Answer.

d. Write a note on the Holy Alliance.

Answer.

5.5 SUMMARY
Legitimacy, as expressed in the treaties that concluded the Congress of Vienna,
emerged as the latter-day expression of the principles of balance and stability that had
shaped diplomacy during the eighteenth century. The age of absolutism had witnessed
the emergence of an international system dedicated to those principles. By enshrining
them in their settlement, the diplomats at Vienna ensured that such a state system
would be part of the legacy to their nineteenth century successors. The Congress of
Vienna was a first major effort on the part of European powers that came together at
Vienna to discuss the fate of Europe. It resolved the territorial disputes arising out of
Napoleonic Wars and European powers with common consensus prepared a ground
for peace in Europe for about a hundred years.
5.6 REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - B/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
61
  Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
5.7 FURTHER READINGS
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
5.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:

1. Why the Congress of Vienna took place? Discuss.

2. How the Congress of Vienna redrawn the map of Europe. Write an essay.
3. Write an essay on the principles of the Congress of Vienna.

******

62
 Chapter 6

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1750-1850); CAUSES FOR ITS

ORIGIN IN ENGLAND; NEW INVENTIONS; IMPACT ON SOCIETY
AND ITS SPREAD TO EUROPE. EASTERN QUESTION: GREEK
WAR OF INDEPENDENCE; MEHMET ALI AND EGYPT;
CRIMEAN WAR
Structure
6.0. Objectives
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Causes of Industrial Revolution’s origin in England
6.3. Industrial Revolution: New Inventions
6.4. Impact on Society
6.5. Eastern Question: Greek War of Independence
6.6. Mehmet Ali and Egypt
6.7. Crimean War 1853-56
6.8. Summary
6.9. References
6.10. Further Readings
6.11. Model Questions
6.0. OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the nature of Industrial Revolution
 Acquire information about the impacts of Industrial Revolution
 Gain knowledge regarding the Greek war
 Study about Mehmet Ali and Egypt
 Understand the key features of Crimean war
6.1. INTRODUCTION
There have been many revolutions in industry during the history of Western
civilization, and there will undoubtedly be many more. Periods of rapid technological
change are often called revolutions, and justifiably so. But historically, there is one
industrial Revolution. Occurring during the hundred years after 1780, it witnessed the
first breakthrough from a rural, handicraft economy to one dominated by urban,

63
machine-driven manufacturing. The fact that it was a European revolution was not
accidental. In the mid-eighteenth century, Europe had been a continent predominately
agricultural with the majority of its people illiterate and impoverished. On the other
hand, European merchants and men of commerce were established as the world’s
foremost manufacturers and trades. Rulers relied upon this class of men to provide
them resources to maintain the economy of their states, and to fight wars against their
enemies. Those men, in turn, had for the most part extracted, from their rulers the
understanding that the property they possessed, whether invested in land, or both
was their outright. That understanding, substantiated by the written contracts, gave a
sense to merchants, bankers, traders, and entrepreneurs that they lived in a world
that was stable, rational, and predictable. Believing the world was so, they moved out
into it with self-confidence and in hopes of increasing their own, and their country’s
prosperity. Only through the activities of such people the industrial Revolution had
taken place.
These European capitalists could not have prospered without an expanding market for
their goods. The existence of this market explains further why it was in Europe that
the industrial Revolution took place. Ever since the beginning of the seventeenth
century, overseas commercial exploration and development had opened new territories
to European trade. India, Africa, North and South America had been woven into the
pattern of European economic expansion. The colonies and commercial dependencies
took economic shape at Europe’s behest. A third factor helping to ensure that the
industrial revolution would occur in Europe was population growth, which occurred
throughout Western Europe in the eighteenth century. Increasing populations, along
with overseas expansion, provided an ever-growing market for manufactured goods. It
furnished an adequate pool of labouring men, women, and children to work in the
manufacture of those goods either at home or in factories. Yet these factors, viz., a
thriving commercial class, growing markets, and an expanding population explain why
the Industrial Revolution took place in eighteenth-century Europe, particularly, in
England.
6.2. CUAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION’S ORIGIN IN ENGLAND
It was in England that the Industrial Revolution first took hold. England’s economy
had progressed further than that of any other country in the direction of abundance.
In simplest terms: first, fewer people were engaged in the crude struggle to do no more
than remain alive; and second, more people were in position to sell a surplus of the
goods they produced to an increasingly expanding market offered. Following are the
main causes of industrial revolution in England:

64
a. Enclosure of agricultural land: English labourers in spite of having paid poorly
enjoyed a higher standard of living compared to their continental counterparts.
Several bills for the enclosure of agricultural land were passed by an England
Parliament that helped capitalism during the last half of the eighteenth century.
The enclosure of fields, pasture, and waste lands into large fenced tracts of land
under the private ownership and individual management of capitalist landlords
increased food supply to feed an increasing and increasingly urban population.
b. Availability of capital for investment: Another sign of England’s abundance was
its growing supply of surplus capital, derived from investment in land or
commerce, and available for further employment to finance new economic
enterprises. London, already a leading centre for the world’s trade, served as a
headquarters for the transfer of raw material, capital, and manufactured
products. For example, Portugal alone channelled as much as £50,000 in
Brazilian gold per week into London. Thus, English capitalists had enough
money on hand to underwrite and sustain an industrial revolution.
c. Business mindset: In addition to money, a new mindset that encouraged
investments in enterprises had emerged in England, where the pursuit of
wealth was perceived as of the renaissance notion of “gentlemanly” conduct.
The English aristocrats, whose privileges were meagre, had disdained to make
whatever they could for themselves. They invested and speculated. Their
scramble to enclose their lands reflected this sympathy with aggressive
capitalism. Below the aristocracy, there was even less of a barrier separating
the world of urban commerce from that of the rural gently. Most of the men who
pioneered as entrepreneurs in the early year of the Industrial Revolution sprang
from the minor gentry or yeoman farmer class. Eighteenth-century England was
not by any means free of social snobbery: lords looked down upon bankers, as
bankers looked down upon artisans. But a lord’s disdain might well be
tempered by the fact of his own grandfather’s origins in the counting house.
And the banker would gladly lend money to the artisan if convinced that the
artisan’s invention might make them both a fortune. The English, as a nation,
were not afraid of business. They respected the sensible, the practical, and the
financially successful.
d. Expanding markets: England’s eighteenth – century prosperity was based upon
an expanding market for whatever goods it manufactured. Its small size and the
fact that it was an island encouraged the development of a nationwide domestic
market. The absence of system of internal tolls and tariffs, such as existed on
the continent, meant that goods could be moved freely to the place where they
65
 could fetch the best price. This freedom of movement was assisted by a
constantly improving transportation system. Parliament in the years just before
the industrial revolution passed acts to finance turnpike at the rate of forty per
year. The same period saw the construction of canals and the further opening
up of harbours and navigable streams. English entrepreneurs and technicians
responded to the compulsion by revolutionizing the production of cotton textile
goods. Although far less cotton goods were made in eighteenth-century England
than wool, the extent of their manufacture by 1760 was such as to make cotton
more than an infant industry. Tariffs prohibiting the importation of East Indian
cottons were imposed by Parliament to stimulate the sale of woollen goods, and
it encouraged the manufacturing of domestic cotton goods. Thus, the
revolution, when it did occur, took place in an already well-established
industry.
6.3. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: NEW INVENTIONS
Several inventions of some sort of machinery, which would improve the quality and at
the same time dramatically increase the quantity of spun cotton thread, had taken
place in England. The invention of the fly-shuttle and then the spinning jenny
(invented by James Hargreaves in 1767) were major breakthroughs. The spinning
jenny, named after the inventor’s wife, was a compound spinning wheel, capable of
producing sixteen threads at once. The invention of the water frame by Richard
Arkwright, a barber, in 1769, made possible the production of both warp and woof
(latitudinal fibres) in large quantity. This invention, along with that of the spinning
mule, conceived of by Samuel Crompton in 1779, and combining the features of both
the jenny and the frame, solved the problems that had heretofore curtailed the output
of cotton textiles. Once these machines came into general use, the revolution
proceeded apace. Cotton suited the mule and the jenny because it was a tougher
thread than wool – fibre, which could withstand the rough treatment it received at the
mechanical hand of the crude early machines. In addition, the supply of cotton was
expandable in a way that the supply of wool was not. The cotton gin, invented by the
American Eli Whitney in 1793, separated seeds from fibre mechanically, and it thereby
made cotton available at a lower price.
As the size of the spinning machines increased they frequently began to be housed in
workshops or mills located near water, which could be used to power the machines.
Eventually, with the further development of steam-driven equipment, the mills could
be built wherever it might suit the entrepreneur – frequently in towns and cities in the
north of England. By 1851, three fifths of those employed in cotton manufacture

66
worked in medium- to large-size mills. Britain’s abundant supply of coal, combined
with its advanced transportation net-work, allowed the English, from the middle of the
eighteenth century, to substitute coal for wood in the heating of molten metal. A series
of discoveries made fuel saving possible, along with a higher quality of iron, and the
manufacture of a greater variety of iron products, for instance, plant machinery,
agricultural implements, and hardware. The need for more coal required the mining of
deeper and deeper veins. In 1712, Thomas Newcomen devised a crude but effective
steam engine for pumping water from mines. In 1763, James Watts was asked to
repair a model of the Newcomen engine. While engaged in this task he conceived the
idea that the machine would be greatly improved if a separate chamber were added to
condense the steam to eliminate the necessity of cooling the cylinder. He patented his
first engine incorporating this device in 1769.
6.4. IMPACTS ON SOCIETY
The social impact of industrialization was profound. For the first time since the
Neolithic Revolution, people worked outside of the local environment of their homes.
They arose every morning and travelled to their place of employment. This was most
often in a workplace known as a factory. The new machinery of the Industrial
Revolution was very large and sometimes required acres of floor space to hold the
number of machines needed to keep up with consumer demand. The industrial
economy had a new set of rules and time schedules for the common labourer. The
work environment not only moved indoors, but the pace of the work changed
drastically. The seasons of the year were no longer relevant to the time spent at work.
Adult males were now expected to labour twelve to fourteen hours a day, five-and-a-
half days a week, all year long.
Child labour also changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Children were
expected to help the family in the traditional economy, but usually they had been
assigned tasks that were commensurate with their age. Not unlike their mothers,
young children began to be exploited by their bosses. The Industrial Revolution also
accelerated the growth of the urban population. One of the more important
consequences of urbanization was a rapid increase in crime. This was the result of
three factors that dominated the urban landscape. The first two were poverty and
unemployment. There was no job security or social security for the factory worker.
Industrialization drew thousands of people to the urban areas in search of
employment. Cities such as Manchester, England, were completely unprepared for the
great influx of workers. The Industrial Revolution also accelerated change in the area
of political and economic thought.

67
The dominant economic model of the early industrial period was mercantilism, a
command economy based upon the belief that there are a finite number of resources
in the world. The primary economic goal of each nation was to control as many of
these resources as possible. Its trade policies were a form of eighteenth-century
protectionism. To understand the fully nature of industrial Revolution in England one
must not lose sight of two important factors: the first is that, dramatic as the
revolution was, it happened over a period of two or three generation, at varying paces
in different industries. Second the Revolution was accomplished from a very limited
technological and theoretical base except in the chemical industry, changes was not
the result of scientific research. It was the product of empirical experimentation –
some cases, of little more than creative thinking. What occurred in England was a
revolution because of the way in which it reshaped the lives, not just of the England,
but the people across the globe.

Self Assessment questions.

a. What is industrial revolution?
Answer.

b. How enclosure of land helped in industrial revolution?

Answer.

c. Who invented spinning jenny?

Answer.

d. What was the invention of James Watts?

Answer.

6.5. EASTERN QUESTION: GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

The Greek revolted against the Turks due to their being subjected to heavy taxation
and humiliation. There was a revival of the Greek national spirit towards the end of
the 18th century and the beginning of the 19 th century. The ancient Greek literature
was revived and an attempt was made to restore the classical Greek language in place
of the corrupt dialect spoken by the people. The study of the glories of the past by
their ancestor gave them encouragement and hopes and created a strong desire for

68
independence. In 1814, a society called the Hetairia Philike (means: Friendly Society)
was formed by Greek patriots at Odessa and it waged struggle against Turkey from
1814 to 1821. Its object was to drive out the Turks from Greece and establish the
independence of the country.
The Greeks revolted in 1821 under the leadership of Prince Alexander Ypsilanti.
Ypsilanti was defeated and he was arrested and spent the rest of his days in prison. In
the same year, the Greeks also revolted in the Morea. In response, Turkish forces
executed the Patriarch of Constantinople and massacred the Greek Christians. It
created a feared that Russia might attack Turkey at once. Both England and Austria
took measure to avoid the danger of Russian intervention in Turkey. For some years,
Canning and Metternich were in agreement in principle. The struggle between the
Greek and Turks was no the business of any other state and consequently it was the
duty of the Great power to “hold the ring” and not to allow any power to interfere.
Canning’s view was that if Russia was allowed to interfere in Greece, Russia might
“gobble Greece at one mouthful and Turkey at the next.” Such was the situation
between 1820 and 1825. Both the Greeks and the Turks were equally cruel and both
of them were proving a match for each other. Both Castlereagh and Canning were
friendly to the Greeks and their object was to induce Turkey to come to terms with
them so that the Tsar might not to be able to take advantage of this situation. It is
pointed out that the war in the Morea was literally a war of extermination. The Greek
slogan was: “Turkey shall live no longer, neither in the Morea nor on the whole earth.”
There was a wholesale massacre of Christians in Thessaly, Macedonia, Asia Minor and
Chios. There was a stage when the Tsar gave an ultimatum to Turkey and war seemed
imminent.
The Turkish Sultan asked for the help of Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt, the latter sent
his son Ibrahim at the head of a great army and navy. He conquered and destroyed
Crete in 1824 and landed in the Morea in 1825. Having secured Navarino as his base,
Ibrahim advanced through the Morea “harrying devasting and slaughtering in all
directions”. Missolonghi was captured and Lord Byron lost his life. Things changed in
Russia also. Tsar, who was too much under the influence of Metternich, died in 1825
and was succeed by Nicholas Ⅰ. He was a man of very different temperament and
training. He was not under the influence of Metternich and consequently could afford
to follow an independent policy. It was stated that although he did not care very much
for the Greeks as such, he was also not disposed to allow the Sultan to play fast and
loose with Russia. At this time, Canning, Foreign minister of England, sent the Duke
of Wellington on a special mission to St. Petersburg. In April 1826, an agreement

69
between Great Britain and Russia was reached and the two powers agreed to offer
joint meditation to Turkey. According to the agreement Greece was to pay tribute to
the sultan but otherwise Greek was to be practically independent.
The Sultan agreed to evacuate the principalities, and made some concessions to
Serbia. However, Sultan was not willing to accept any meditation in the matter of
Greece unless it was backed by force. In July 1827, the treaty of London was signed
between Great Britain, Russia and France. It was agreed between parties that if
Turkey refused an immediate armistice, force was to be applied. The resistance of the
Greeks was breaking down and there was every possibility of their collapse after the
fall of Athens in June 1827. In August 1827, Greece accepted the meditation of the
powers. However, it was declined by Turkey.
Admiral Codrington received instructions to “intercept all ships freighted with men or
arms destined to go against the Greeks” without “degenerating into hostilities.”
Ibrahim was informed by the English and French admirals that not a single ship
would be allowed to harbour off Navarino, Ibrahim in anger, tried to kill the wretched
survivors in the Morea. The admirals remonstrated with Ibrahim and the Turks fired
on the British. The Battle of Navarino began on 20 October, 1827. Before sunset, all
the Turko-Egyptian ships “had disappeared, the Bay of Navarino was covered with
their wrecks.” The Battle of Navarino did not get any praise for their achievement.
Canning had already died in August 1827 and the Duke of Wellington who succeed
him, expressed regret for the “untoward event” of Navarino. Great Britain left the war
and France followed suit.
The Turks felt happy and they decided to deal with the Greeks in their own way. No
wonder, Tsar Nicholas declared war against Turkey in April 1828. He crossed the
Pruth and occupied the Principalities. The Russian fleet also entered the Dardanelles.
The action of Russia seemed to destroy the work of Castlereagh and Canning who had
tried to check the Russian influence in the Balkans. On the one hand, the Greeks
were at the mercy of the Sultan and on the other the independence of Turkey was
threatened by the Tsar. The Turks put up a stiff resistance but they were no match for
the Russians. In September 1829, peace was made between Russia and Turkey.
England and France successful negotiated with Mehmet Ali and Ibrahim for the
withdrawal of the Egyptian forces from Morea. After their evacuation, the fortress was
occupied by the French. According to the terms of the protocols signed in London, the
Morea and Greece were placed under the protection of the two powers. Greece was to
be an autonomous but tributary State under a prince selected by the powers. The
frontiers of the new States were also defined. These arrangements were confirmed by

70
the Treaty of Adrianople. It was in this way that the independence of Greece was
recognized. In 1832, the boundaries of Greece were enlarged. She was declared
independent and guaranteed a loan and a monarch.
6.6. MEHMET ALI AND EGYPT
After the departure of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), there was anarchy in Egypt.
The credit to end this state of things goes to Mehmet Ali, who by his personal initiative
and resources was able to establish hold over that territory. He helped the Turkish
Sultan in the Greek War and was given the island of Crete as a reward for his services.
But he was not contended with that and he managed to establish his control over
Syria and Asia Minor. Mehmet Ali even threatened Constantinople. As the Turkish
Sultan entered into the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi in 1883 with Russia, Mehmet Ali had
to keep quiet. The war was renewed again by the Sultan but he was defeated and
killed. However, by the treaty of London of 1840, the European powers came to the
rescue of the young Sultan of Turky. Mehmet Ali was ousted from Syria and ultimately
by the treaty of 1841, he was recognised as the hereditary Governor of Egypt. Before
his death in 1847, Mehmet Ali was able to bring prosperity to Egypt. He left behind
him canals, roads, factories, arsenals, schools and hospitals. He introduced into the
Delta of the Nile the cotton plant which was destined to add to the wealth and
prosperity of that country. Mehmet Ali was succeeded by his son Ibrahim, the hero of
the Greeks war of independence. Abbas came to the throne in 1849 and ruled for 5
years. He was cruel, sensual and avaricious and was murdered by a slave.
6.7. CRIMEAN WAR 1853-56
The Crimean War took place from October 1853 to February 1856. It was a conflict
which involved Russia against an alliance of Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire,
Sardinia and the Austrian Empire. The Crimean War was fought mostly in the
Crimean Peninsula. It began as Russia pursued an expansionist policy at the cost of
the declining Ottoman Empire. At dispute was the rights of the Ottoman Empire’s
Orthodox Christian minority in the Holy Land as negotiated in the Peace Treaty of
Kaynarca that ended the Russian-Turkish war of 1768. According to the treaty
Russians were given responsibility to guard the interest of the Orthodox Christian
minority in the Ottoman Empire, but France, a Roman Catholic country, claimed that
responsibility and sovereign authority over the entire Christian population. In order to
assert its power over Russia’s expansionist policy, Napoleon III sent his most
technological advanced ship, the Charlemagne, to the Black Sea.
Ottoman leaders favoured the French. Russia responded by invading the Ottoman
controlled Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (today these territories
71
are part of Moldova and Romania). Russians destroyed the Turkish squadron in the
Battle of Sinope in 1853. Austria threatened to get involved in the war if Russia did
not withdraw from the Danubian principalities. Russia withdrew and Austria
temporarily occupied them. Russia expected Austria to back them since Tsar Nicholas
assisted Austria in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1848; but Austria felt
threatened by Russia’s expansion. Catherine the Great had already annxed Crimea in
1784 and Nicholas was following her policy of geopolitical domination. France and
Britain, the superpowers of the time, feared Russia’s domination of the Black Sea and
declared war on Russia in March 1854. The Black Sea was an important part of the
trade routes to India and Egypt. In 1855 the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, modern
day Italy, joined the war contributing 10,000 men to destroy the Russian Naval base of
Sevastopol. The three major encounters in the Crimean War were the Battle of
Balaklava, the Battle of Inkerman and the Battle of Malakhov.
Even though Russia faced defeats at different occasions, the war was ended with the
treaty of Paris. Representatives from Russia, Turkey, France, Britain, Sardinia, Austria
and Prussia participated in peace negotiations which resulted in the signing of the
Treaty of Paris on March 30, 1856. The Treaty of Paris allowed temporary peace in
Europe. One of the terms of the agreement and perhaps the most difficult to accept
was the proclamation of neutralization of the Black Sea. Russia and Turkey were not
allowed military fleets, forts and arsenals on the coast of the Black Sea. The Black Sea
straits were closed for military vessels of all nations. Russia and Turkey were only
allowed a limited number of light military ships for patrolling purposes. Under the
treaty Russia returned Kars to Turkey in exchange for Sevastopol, Balaclava and other
captured cities. The treaty also established freedom of navigation for international
merchant ships along the Danube and in the Black Sea. It opened new markets to
French, British and Austrian goods damaging Russian exports to its traditional markets.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Comment on Hetairia Philike.
Answer.

b. Who was Mehmet Ali Pasha?

Answer.

72
 c. Why was Crimean war fought?
Answer.

6.8 SUMMARY
The 18th and 19th century, whereas inaugurated an era of industrial revolution in
Europe, particularly England, the same period witnessed a vigorous conflict among
different European powers. Ignited by a desire to colonise newer territories, England,
France, Austria, Germany, Russia and Turkey got involved in the Greek war and the
Crimean war to assert their superiority. These conflicts among European powers did
not remain confined to European soil; rather they spilled over to Asia and Africa and
an era of intense political rivalry began in the history of modern World.
6.9 REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - B/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
6.10 FURTHER READINGS
 Doyle, William, (2001), The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
6.11. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Discuss the causes of Industrial Revolution.
2. How scientific and technical inventions stimulated Industrial Revolution?
Discuss.
3. Write an essay on the Greek war of independence.
4. Write an essay on the Crimean war.

*****
73
 Chapter 7

UNIFICATION OF ITALY: DIFFERENT STAGES IN

UNIFICATION OF ITALY; ROLE OF MAZZINI, CAVOUR
AND GARIBALDI

Structure
7.0. Objectives
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72)
a. Revolution of 1848-49
7.3. Cavour (1810-61)
7.4. Garibaldi (1807-82)
7.5. Summary
7.6. References
7.7. Further Readings
7.8. Model Questions
7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the nature of the process of Italian unification
 Acquire information about Giuseppe Mazzini
 Gain knowledge regarding Cavour’s contribution in Italian unification
 Understand the contribution of Garibaldi in the unification of Italy
7.1. INTRODUCTION
The Napoleonic regime had infused new life into Italy’ and given an impulse to union
which had been strengthened on many a battlefield. After the fall of Napoleon
Bonaparte, Italy was again divided into a large number of states, and the Vienna
settlement of 1815 failed to unify it. Sicily and Naples was placed under Ferdinand I;
Rome and Papal states were under the Pope; and in a similar manner, Parma, Modena
and Tuscany were under the members of the Habsburg family. Lombardy and Venetia
were annexed to the Austrian Empire and Sardinia and Genoa were added to the
kingdom of Piedmont. On the whole, there was excessive provincialism in Italy and
everything was dominated by Austria. As the restored princes followed a policy a
74
reaction, the democratic and nationalist ideas began to work among the people.
Patriots (Italian nationalists) were roused to a sense of their country’s humiliation and
democrats inspired to resist oppression as Italians. Secret societies began to spread all
over Italy and the Carbonari was the most important one. Carbonari had a determined
political purpose which was the expulsion of the foreigner and the achievement of
constitutional freedom. All classes joined it whether they were nobles, military officers,
peasants or priests. However, the liberal and democratic ideas had taken the deepest
roots among the gentry, and the bourgeoisie. The Carbonari spread beyond Italy and
the black, red and blue of the Carbonari became the flag of the revolution. Later it was
replaced by another society, called “Young Italy”. Nevertheless, three persons, viz.,
Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi played a crucial role in the multi-stages process of
Italy’s unification.
7.2 GIUSEPPE MAZZINI (1805-72)
Giuseppe Mazzini was the son of a doctor and professor of anatomy of Genoa. From
his childhood, he was influenced by the nationalist movement in Italy. During the
1820s Mazzini studied the writings of the romantic writer of Italy, France, Germany,
and Great Britain. He joined the Carbonari (secret nationalist society) because it was a
revolutionary organisation that fought against the foreign rule. He was arrested in
1830 and imprisoned in the fortress of Savona. He was released after six months. His
vast experience helped him to found in 1831 a new organisation known as “Young
Italy”. This society superseded the Carbonari as the centre of nationalist agitation. A
member of Young Italy society had a take an oath, i.e., “To dedicate myself wholly and
forever to the task of constituting a free, independent and republican Italy.” Mazzini
believed that the Young men of Italy could bring about the unification of Italy if they
had faith in their mission. Mazzini appealed for martyrs to the Indian cause. He
reminded the Italian that they had no citizenship, no country and no national flag. The
motto of young Italy was: God, people and Italy and its methods were education,
literary propaganda and revolts.
Young Italy’s main objects were to create among the Italian the spirit of self-sacrifice to
die for the sake of their country. Mazzini considered the liberation and unification of
Italy as the main purpose of his life, and he was prepared to live and die for it. He was
a dauntless leader. To achieve his aim, Mazzini believed that Austria must be driven
out of Italy and the sooner that was done the better. He was not in favour of any
foreign help to drive out the Austrian form Italy. The great contribution of Mazzini lay
in the fact that at a time, when the people of Italy considered the liberation and
unification of Italy as to create a faith among the people for the holy task. He was able

75
to convert a large number of persons who were fired with the same missionary spirit
which he himself possessed for the cause of Italian unification. High hopes were raised
in Italy when Pious IX became the Pope in 1846. He followed a liberal policy and it was
felt that he might become the leader of the nationalist and democratic forces in the
country. However, the zeal of the Pope slacked very soon and he refused to move
forward. In spite of this, in every state in Italy, a new spirit has taken roots and a
desire for Italy’s unification was almost universal.
a. Revolution of 1848-49
In January 1848, a revolution broke out in Palermo which demanded reform, Sicilian
autonomy and the constitution of 1812. The demands were granted after some
resistance. There were demonstrations in Naples and they also got a new constitution.
The result was that there were popular demonstrations in favour of a constitution in
Piedmont, Tuscany and the Papal States. In March 1848, Piedmont and Tuscany got
liberal constitutions which established constitutional governments in those States.
The same month news came that there was a revolt in Vienna and Budapest. The
revolution broke out in Milan and a republic was proclaimed in Venice. There was a
demand for war to end the Austrian domination in Italy.
Tuscany, Naples and the Papal States sent their contingents. However, after some time
they were all withdrawn. Charles Albert was defeated in the battle of Custozza in July
1848. Lombardy and Venetia came under the control of Austria. The result of
Custozza was that the Moderates were discredited and the extremists under Mazzini
same to the front. A republic was proclaimed in Rome under the headship of Mazzini.
The authority of the Pope was abolished and the Pope ran away to Naples and
appealed to the European Powers for help. In March 1849, Charles Albert renewed the
war against Austria but he was again defeated in the Battle of Novara. He abdicated
and his son Victor Emmanuel II made peace with Austria. After Novara, reaction
started in Italy. Sicily was re-conquered by Naples. The ruler of Tuscany was restored.
Louis Napoleon, the French President, sent an expedition to Rome. Garibaldi was
defeated and the Pope was restored. Venice was also captured by the Austrians in
August 1849. Absolutism and reaction triumphed everywhere in Italy except Piedmont
which did not cancel the liberal constitution given in 1848. Although the movement of
1848-49 had failed, something had been gained.
Those who stood for a republican government for Italy or a government under the Pope
were discredited and things were cleared for the unification of Italy under the
monarchy of Piedmont. Moreover, during this movement, the people from all over Italy
participated unmindful of the fact whether they belonged to one part of Italy or the
76
other. The people of Italy became conscious of themselves. The failure of the revolts in
Italy before the rise of Cavour was due to many causes. Austrian position was very
strong in Italy and it was not possible to oust Austria without foreign help. However,
the motto of the Italian patriots was that they would be able to achieve their
independence and unification without any outside help. That was impossible. It is true
that as a result of the Carbonari and Young Italy of Mazzini, ideas of nationalism were
spreading all over Italy, but still there was provincialism and selfishness among the
people.

Self Assessment questions.

a. How Vienna settlement of 1815 failed to unify Italy?
Answer.

b. Write a note on ‘Young Italy’.

Answer.

c. Who was Mazzini?

Answer.

d. Why revolution of 1848-49 failed?

Answer.

7.3 CAVOUR (1810-61)

Cavour rose to prominence at a time, when the Italian revolution of 1848-49 had
failed. Until his death in 1861, the most important man in Italian politics was Cavour.
As a Youngman, he had travelled widely in England, France and Switzerland. He was a
keen student of advanced western methods in agriculture, industry and parliamentary
government and was fascinated by them. It became a mission of his life to westernize
the kingdom of Piedmont and eventually the whole of Italy. He was convinced that
railways, factories, banks, milk and business enterprises as working in France and
Britain were the only road to economic prosperity in Italy. In October 1850, he was
appointed Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Marine of Piedmont. He made a
series of commercial treaties with England, France and Belgium and thereby linked
Piedmont to the free trade countries of Western Europe.

77
As a Minister of Finance, he raised capital by internal loans for immediate needs and
an external loan from England. A part of it was spent on the construction of rail-roads.
In November 1852, he formed his own Ministry. In his new capacity, he started in
right earnest the improvement of the roads, rail-roads, docks and ports of Piedmont.
He expanded her commerce and strengthened her finances. By 1854, he had
succeeded in running Piedmont on sounder business-like lines. Keeping England and
France as his models, he passed the necessary legislation to modernise the structure
of business corporations, banks and credit institutions, co-operative societies, the civil
administration and the army. After the end of the Crimean War in 1856, Cavour took
further a more intensive programme of economic development. He tried to acquire
more military and economic strength for his country. The railways of greatest strategic
importance were expanded. The Mont Cenis Tunnel was planned to pierce the Alaps
and link up the territory of Piedmont with France. Genoa was changed from a naval
base into a great commercial port with new docks and leading facilities. Piedmont was
linked very closely with the West by rail and steamship. By the time Cavour died in
1861, he had created by diplomatic alliances and wars, a new kingdom of Italy with
Piedmont as its core, but still excluding Venetia and Rome.
Cavour joined the Crimean War in 1855 on behalf of England, France and Turkey and
against Russia. It is true that Piedmont had no interest in the Eastern Question, but
he got an opportunity to raise the status of Piedmont. It was a master-stroke of his
policy. When the Italian troops complained of mud in the Crimea, Cavour wrote back
thus. “Out of this mud, Italy will be made.” After victory over Russia, the Congress of
Paris was held in 1856. It was before that Congress that Cavour was able to condemn
the Austrian rule in Italy and raise the Italian question from the level of a local
question to that of an international question. Moreover, he wanted the sympathy of
Europe for his cause, particularly that of Napoleon III. Napoleon III himself had
sympathy for the cause of Italian unification. Napoleon III felt that by helping Italy, he
will be doing what Napoleon I had done in his own time. He will be completing the
work started by Napoleon Bonaparte.
In 21-22 July 1858 at Plombieres an agreement was arrived at between Cavour and
Napoleon III. France promised to support Piedmont in a war with Austria on the
condition that Cavour provided a pretext which would justify the action of France in
the eyes of the people of Europe. The Austrians were to be driven out of Italy. In March
1859, Russia was won over by a treaty whereby Napoleon III agreed to support a
revision of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 in return for Russia’s approval of the changes in
the settlement of 1815 in so far as it affected Italy. This ensured Italy against Russian

78
intervention. On the other hand, there was no danger of intervention from Britain
because popular sympathies in Britain were with the people of Italy. Prussia was
expected to follow Britain in seeking mediation and she was not averse to seeking
Austria humiliated. Piedmont and Austria began to mobilise as tension began to
increase. Cavour had only one aim in view and that was to force Austria to issue an
ultimatum at the right moment and thereby put herself in the wrong. Austria
despatched to Turin an ultimatum demanding disarmament “within three days” and
sent her troops into Piedmont on 19 April 1859. Nobody welcomed the war more than
Cavour did. The Austrian Emperor declared that he was fighting for “the rights of all
people and states and for the most sacred blessings of mankind.” The general feeling
was that Austria had broken the peace. Victor Emmanuel was declared Dictator by the
Parliament of Piedmont and the war began.
Every great Power in Europe seemed to be interested in the Italian war and there was
much talk of intervention. The attitude of Great Britain and Russia did not matter
much, but the action of Germany and Prussia was really the most critical question.
Austria was primarily a German power and she was at the head of the Germanic
Confederation. Despite her grievances against Austria, Prussia could not be expected
to remain unconcerned when Austria was being defeated by the armies of France and
Italy. The battles of Magenta were fought on 4 June 1859 and after heavy fighting the
Austrians were defeated. They were defeated but not crushed and hence they retreated
towards the “Quadrilateral.” The battle of Solferino was fought on 24 June 1859. It
was a long drawn out and murderous battle. In the centre and on the right, the
French and the Italians won a complete victory. Although the Austrians under
Benedek held their ground on their right, the battle was lost in other parts of the field.
The losses on both sides were very heavy. The battle of Solferino was a crushing defeat
for Austria.
One the Austrian threat was averted, Cavour, who had taken over as Prime Minister in
January 1860, decided to settle the Italian question by the method of plebiscites in
Italy. An enormous majority in Tuscany and an almost unanimous vote in other places
declared for a union with the Kingdom of Victor Emmanuel. While several states of
Italy voted to join the kingdom of Piedmont, Savoy and Nice declared for union with
France. Thus, Napoleon III was given Nice and Savoy and he agreed to the union of
Tuscany, Parma, Modena, etc., with the kingdom of Piedmont. When Napoleon III
accepted Nice and Savoy, Cavour observed, “Now we are accomplices.” With great
caution and skill, Cavour embarked upon one of the most amazing enterprises in the

79
history of the Italian union. And Cavour found immense support in his task from
Garibaldi.
Garibaldi was the leader of irregular forces. He was devoted to the cause of Italian
unity. The annexation of Naples and Sicily depended as much on Garibaldi as on
Cavour. Although Cavour and Garibaldi did not see eye to eye with each other, they
had to work in cooperation for the sake of Italian unification. On 5 May 1860,
Garibaldi left the port of Genoa with two vessels and 1,136 volunteers to whom were
distributed red shirts on the way. They landed at Marsala on 11 May 1860. Garibaldi
advanced on Palermo and won a wonderful victory outside Palermo and later on
captured the city itself. This first victory decided the fate of the campaign in Sicily.
King Francis had no supporters in Sicily outside the fortress of Messina. The
nationalists of Naples appealed to Garibadi for help, Victor Emmanuel forbade him to
pass the Straits and at the same time suggested to him the language in which he
should refuse the command. Garibaldi landed at the extreme south of Italy and
marched on Naples. There was no resistance. King Francis was betrayed by many of
his ministers and soldiers and he left Naples for Gaeta on 6 September 1860.
Garibaldi entered Naples and he was welcomed by the people.
Cavour was happy that King Francis of Naples and Sicily had been overthrown but he
was anxious to know what was to take its place. Garibaldi had always declared that he
was acting in the name of Italy and Victor Emmanuel but it was not certain as to what
he might do in actual practice. The possibility of the restoration of King Francis could
not be ruled out because he was still holding out at Gaeta. It appeared to Cavour that
time had come when he and his master must act in order to save the situation. There
were revolts in the Marches and in Umbria. It was difficult to attack the Papal territory
as the Pope was recognised as a part of the state system of Europe. However, Cavour
declared in a despatch to Pope Pius IX that the King of Sardinia felt himself bound “in
the cause of humanity” to prevent the Papal troops from suppressing with violence the
popular movements in Umbria. On this pretext, the Italian army entered the Papal
States and defeated the Papal army at Castelfidardo.
The forces of Victor Emmanuel then pushed on into Naples and took over the
authority which had been exercised so far by Garibaldi as a dictator. To begin with,
Garibaldi declared that he had no confidence in Cavour and he would not declare
annexation to the kingdom of Victor Emmanuel until Rome was conquered. There was
some danger of a clash between the Red shirts of Garibaldi and the troops of Victor
Emmanuel. However, the danger passed away. King Francis was forced to leave Gaeta
and he retired to Rome. Garibaldi met Victor Emmanuel who thanked him for the

80
great services rendered by him to the cause of the country. However, Garibaldi refused
to accept any reward for his services and retired to his Island home Caprera.
Plebiscites were held in Naples, Sicily and the Papal states and by overwhelming
majorities, the people declared for immediate annexation to “the constitutional
monarchy of Victor Emmanuel.” The first Italian Parliament met in Turin in February
1861. In March a new constitutional decree containing a single article was
promulgated. “Victor Emmanuel II assumes for himself and his successors the title of
King of Italy.” Cavour died soon after, but it cannot be denied that he was the real
creator of Italy as a nation.
7.4 GARIBALDI (1807-82)
Garibaldi was born in 1807 at Nice, then an Italian town. His father was a skipper. He
was two years younger to Mazzini. He acquired good experience of the Mediterranean
by working in coasting trade for ten years. He was inspired by Italian patriots and
exiles to fight for Italian freedom. He was introduced to Mazzini and he joined “Young
Italy” of Mazzini. In 1833, Garibaldi joined in one of the many conspiracies of Mazzini.
His part was to enter the Sardinian Navy and win over the sailors to the plot. The
conspiracy failed and Garibaldi was prosecuted. He managed to run away, but he was
condemned to death by the Government of Sardinia. The years between 1836 and
1845 were spent by Garibaldi in South America. There he lived a wild and roving life.
He took part in the local wars and acquired the experience of guerrilla warfare which
was to be of great use to him later on. In 1847, Garibaldi offered his services to the
Pope who at that time was considered to be the hope of the Italian patriots who
wanted unification of their country. In 1848, he came back to Italy and placed his
services at the disposal of Charles Albert of Sardinia who had declared war against
Austria. Thousands of persons flocked to the standard of “hero of Montevideo” to fight
against Austria.
As the campaign failed, he went in 1849 to fight in defence of the republican regime in
Rome. His was a heroic defence but after the fall of that city, he managed to escape
with 4,000 troops. He was pursued by the Austrians and he escaped to Tuscany and
from there to Piedmont and ultimately to America. His exploits full of heroism, chivalry
and romance moved the Italians to enthusiasm and admiration. In 1854, Garibaldi
came back to Italy with a little money with which he bought a small island of Caprera,
near Sardinia. In 1856, Garibaldi met Cavour and in 1857, he announced his
conversion to the cause of the Sardinian monarchy. At heart Garibaldi continued to be
a republican but he remained loyal to Victor Emmanuel to the end. On 4 April 1860,
the Revolution broke out near Messina in Sicily. When Garibaldi heard of its initial

81
success, he agreed to help the rebels of Sicily and himself appealed to Cavour and
Victor Emmanuel for authorisation and help. Volunteers were collected by Garibaldi.
On 11 May 1860, Garibaldi appeared off Massala on the west coast of Sicily and
disembarked his troops. From Massala, Garibaldi advanced to Palermo. There were
only a thousand men at his disposal, but the number of Neapolitan troops opposing
him was 20,000. On 15 May 1860, the first battle took place. There was hardly any
fighting and towards the end of the day, Neapolitan troops ran away. After a fortnight,
Garibaldi entered Palermo and proclaimed himself the dictator of Sicily. By the end of
July 1860, the whole of the island of Sicily except the fortress of Messina and one or
two minor ports was in his hands.
Mazzini himself was in Italy and preparations were being made to invade the Papal
state. Cavour was afraid of the intervention of France and Austria if Rome was
attacked. However, the diplomatic situation was favourable to the cause of Italian
unification. England was friendly. Napoleon III on the whole was sympathetic and was
not willing to move without England. Austria was not prepared to act alone as there
was the danger of a revolt in Hungary. Cavour tried to persuade Garibaldi to agree to
the immediate annexation of Sicily but failed. In the second week of August 1860,
Garibaldi crossed the Strait and landed in Calabria. The result was that Garibaldi was
able to cross to the mainland of Italy. On 31 August 1860, Garibaldi captured Reggio
and began to advance towards Naples. The progress of Garibaldi became a simple
triumphal march. On 6 September 1860, the King of Naples left for Gaeta and on 7
September Garibaldi entered the capital by train from Salerno alone ahead of his
army. He did not show that he was leading a hostile force.
After Naples, he was to go to Venice and Rome. The revolution infection had spread to
the Papal States. The troops of the People were getting ready to put down the revolt. It
was under these circumstances that Cavour decided to act to save the situation. He
declared, “Italy must be saved from foreigners, evil principles and mad men.” He
decided to anticipate Garibaldi and attack the Papal States with the Sardinian troops
and defend Rome from Garibaldi. On 18 September, the Papal army was defeated at
Castelfidardo. After the occupation of the Papal States, plebiscites were held in Sicily
and Naples and those were in favour of joining the kingdom of Sardinia. That
strengthened the hands of Cavour. Garibaldi also found that without the assistance of
the Sardinian troops, he could not conquer the fortresses of Gaeta and Capua. It was
under these circumstances that Victor Emmanuel entered the territory of Naples at
the head of his army. On 27 October 1860, Garibaldi surrendered his power and his
army to Victor Emmanuel. On 9 November 1860, there was an imposing ceremony in

82
the Palace of Naples where Victor Emmanuel was declared the King of Sicily and
Naples. Garibaldi formally resigned his dictatorship and asked the people to forget
their differences and obey the king. On 10 November 1860, with a bag of seed-corn for
his farm, Garibaldi returned to his Island of Caprera and there spent the rest of his
life in peace and retirement.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Comment on the battle of Solferino.
Answer.

b. Who was Cavour?

Answer.

c. Who was Victor Emmanuel?

Answer.

7.5 SUMMARY
The unification of Italy was a long drawn process and it took place in several stages
with the efforts of Italian patriots like Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi. However, the
formal unification of Italy was completed in 1870 when Napoleon III was forced to
withdraw the French troops from Rome which was stationed there since 1849. That
was due to the fact that Napoleon had to fight against Prussia and it was necessary to
collect troops from everywhere. It was in this way that the unification of Italy was
completed in 1870 as a result of the efforts of the Italian patriots, foreign help and the
force of circumstances.
7.6 REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History
and Their Culture, Volume - C/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Doyle, William, (2001), The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.

83
7.7 FURTHER READINGS
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic History
of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
7.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Why Italian revolution of 1848-49 happened? And why it failed?
2. How Cavour contributed in the unification of Italy?
3. How Mazzini contributed in the unification of Italy?
4. Who was Garibaldi? How he contributed in the unification of Italy.

******

84
 Chapter 8

UNIFICATION OF GERMANY: RISE OF NATIONALISM

AND ROLE OF BISMARCK IN THE UNIFICATION OF
GERMANY

Structure
8.0. Objectives
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Germany in the 18th -19th Century
8.3. Rise of German Nationalism
a. The Revolution of 1848-49
8.4. Role of Bismarck in the Germany’s Unification
a. Bismarck’s ‘Blood and Iron’ Policy
8.5. Summary
8.6. References
8.7. Further Readings
8.8. Model Questions
8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 Understand the nature of the process of German unification
 Gain knowledge regarding the formation of common German language and
culture
 Understand the contribution of Otto von Bismarck in the unification of
Germany
8.1. INTRODUCTION
The unification of Germany into a politically and administratively integrated nation
state officially occurred on January 18, 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of
Versailles in France. Princes of the German states gathered there to proclaim Wilhelm
I of Prussia as German Emperor after the French capitulation in the Franco-Prussian
War. Unofficially, the de facto transition of most of the German-speaking populations
into a federated organization of states had been developing in piecemeal for some time
through alliances formal and informal between princely rulers. Self-interests of the

85
various parties hampered the process over nearly a century of autocratic
experimentation beginning in the era of the Napoleonic Wars, which saw the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (1806) and subsequent rise of German
nationalism. Unification of Germany exposed tensions caused by religious, linguistic,
social, and cultural differences among the inhabitants of the new nation. It suggests
that the events of 1871 only represented one moment in the larger unification process.
Given the mountainous terrains of much of the German territory, it was inevitable that
isolated peoples would develop cultural, educational, linguistic, and religious
differences over such a long period. The unification of Germany happened with the
dissolution of these regional differences and formation of a common German culture.
One of the major factors that contributed in the unification process was the well
developed transportation and communication system. And as the available evidences
show that Germany of the 19th century enjoyed transportation and communications
improvements that began uniting people and culture over the period.
8.2 GERMANY IN THE 18th-19th CENTURY
The Germany was fragmented into numerous smaller states and principalities under
different ruling houses in the 18 th century. The Holy Roman Empire of the German
Nation, which included more than 500 independent states, was effectively dissolved
when Emperor Francis II abdicated the throne during the War of the Third Coalition in
August 1806. Despite the legal, administrative, and political disruption associated
with the end of the Empire, the people of the German-speaking areas of the old Empire
had a common linguistic, cultural, and legal tradition further enhanced by their
shared experience in the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. European
liberalism offered an intellectual basis for unification by challenging dynastic and
absolutist models of social and political organization. Its German manifestation
emphasized the importance of tradition, education, and linguistic unity of people in a
geographic region. Economically, the creation of the Prussian Zollverein (customs
union) in 1818 and its subsequent expansion to include other states of the German
Confederation reduced competition between and within states. Emerging modes of
transportation facilitated business and recreational travel, leading to contact and
sometimes conflict among German speakers from throughout Central Europe.
In the late 18th century, the sense of a German cultural identity began to emerge.
Before 1750, the German upper classes looked to France for intellectual, cultural, and
architectural leadership. By the mid-18th century, the “Aufklärung” (The
Enlightenment) had transformed German high culture in music, philosophy, science,
and literature. The popularisation of German as the common language of the people of

86
Germany created a sense of belonging to a common nation. And in it, German writers
played a significant role. Christian Wolff (1679–1754) was the pioneer as a writer who
expounded the Enlightenment to German readers; he legitimized German as a
philosophic language. Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) broke new ground in
philosophy and poetry as a leader of the Sturm und Drang movement of proto-
Romanticism. Weimar Classicism was a cultural and literary movement based in
Weimar that sought to establish a new humanism by synthesizing Romantic,
Classical, and Enlightenment ideas. The movement, from 1772 until 1805, involved
Herder as well as polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) and Friedrich
Schiller (1759–1805), a poet and historian. Herder argued that every folk had its own
particular identity expressed in its language and culture. This legitimized the
promotion of German language and culture and helped shape the development of
German nationalism. Schiller’s plays expressed the restless spirit of his generation,
depicting the hero’s struggle against social pressures and the force of destiny.
8.3 RISE OF GERMAN NATIONALISM
Under the hegemony of the Napoleonic French Empire (1804–1814), popular German
nationalism thrived in the reorganized German states. Due in part to the shared
experience under French dominance, various justifications emerged to identify
“Germany” as a single state. A common language may have been seen to serve as the
basis of a nation, but as contemporary historians of 19th-century Germany noted, it
took more than linguistic similarity to unify these several hundred polities. The
experience of German-speaking Central Europe during the years of French hegemony
contributed to a sense of common cause to remove the French invaders and reassert
control over their own lands. The exigencies of Napoleon’s campaigns in Poland (1806–
07), the Iberian Peninsula, western Germany, and his disastrous invasion of Russia in
1812 disillusioned many Germans, princes and peasants alike. Napoleon’s
Continental System nearly ruined the Central European economy. The invasion of
Russia included nearly 125,000 troops from German lands, and the loss of that army
encouraged many Germans, both high- and low-born, to envision a Central Europe
free of Napoleon’s influence.
The surge of German nationalism, stimulated by the experience of Germans in the
Napoleonic period and initially allied with liberalism, shifted political, social, and
cultural relationships within the German states during the beginning of the German
Confederation. Figures like August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Ludwig
Uhland, Georg Herwegh, Heinrich Heine, Georg Büchner, Ludwig Börne, and Bettina
von Arnim rose in the Vormärz era. Father Friedrich Jahn’s gymnastic associations

87
exposed middle-class German youth to nationalist and democratic ideas, which took
the form of the nationalistic and liberal democratic college fraternities known as
the Burschenschaften. The Wartburg Festival in 1817 celebrated Martin Luther as a
proto-German nationalist, linking Lutheranism to German nationalism. It helped in
arousing religious sentiments for the cause of German nationhood. The festival
culminated in the burning of several books and other items that symbolized
reactionary attitudes. One item was a book by August von Kotzebue, who was accused
of spying for Russia in 1819 and then murdered by a theological student, Karl Ludwig
Sand, who was executed for the crime. Sand belonged to a militant nationalist faction
of the Burschenschaften. Metternich used the murder as a pretext to issue the
Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, which dissolved the Burschenschaften, cracked down on
the liberal press, and seriously restricted academic freedom. Metternich was able to
harness conservative outrage at the assassination to consolidate legislation that would
further limit the press and constrain the rising liberal and nationalist movements.
Consequently, these decrees drove the Burschenschaften underground, restricted the
publication of nationalist materials, expanded censorship of the press and private
correspondence, and limited academic speech by prohibiting university professors
from encouraging nationalist discussion.
a. The Revolution of 1848-49
The revolutions of 1848 in the German states, the opening phase of which was also
called the March Revolution, were initially part of the Revolutions of 1848 that broke
out in many European countries. They were a series of loosely coordinated protests
and rebellions in the states of the German Confederation, including the Austrian
Empire. The revolutions, which stressed pan-Germanism, demonstrated popular
discontent with the traditional, largely autocratic political structure of the 39
independent states of the Confederation that inherited the German territory of the
former Holy Roman Empire. The middle-class elements were committed to liberal
principles while the working class sought radical improvements to their working and
living conditions. As the middle class and working-class components of the Revolution
split, the conservative aristocracy defeated it. Liberals were forced into exile to escape
political persecution, where they became known as Forty-Eighters. Many immigrated
to the United States, settling from Wisconsin to Texas.
In 1848, Austria was the predominant German state. It was considered the successor
to the Holy Roman Empire, which had been dissolved by Napoleon in 1806, and was
not resurrected by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. German Austrian chancellor
Metternich had dominated Austrian politics from 1815 until 1848. On March 13,

88
1848, university students mounted a large street demonstration in Vienna, and it was
covered by the press across the German-speaking states. Following the important but
relatively minor demonstrations against Lola Montez in Bavaria on February 9, 1848,
the first major revolt of 1848 in German lands occurred in Vienna on March 13, 1848.
The student demonstrators demanded a constitution and a constituent assembly
elected by universal male suffrage. Emperor Ferdinand and his chief adviser
Metternich directed troops to crush the demonstration. When demonstrators moved to
the streets near the palace, the troops fired on the students, killing several. The new
working class of Vienna joined the student demonstrations, developing an armed
insurrection. The Diet of Lower Austria demanded Metternich’s resignation. With no
forces rallying to Metternich’s defence, Ferdinand reluctantly complied and dismissed
him. The former chancellor went into exile in London. In Prussia, in March 1848,
crowds of people gathered in Berlin to present their demands in an “address to the
king.” King Frederick William IV, taken by surprise, yielded verbally to all the
demonstrators’ demands, including parliamentary elections, a constitution, and
freedom of the press. He promised that “Prussia was to be merged forthwith into
Germany.”
On March 13, the army charged people returning from a meeting in the Tiergarten;
they left one person dead and many injured. On March 18, a large demonstration
occurred. In this demonstration two shots were fired and because of it, the people
feared that some of the 20,000 soldiers would be used against them. They erected
barricades, fighting started, and a battle took place until troops were ordered 13 hours
later to retreat, leaving hundreds dead. Afterwards, Frederick William attempted to
reassure the public that he would proceed with reorganizing his government. The king
also approved arming the citizens. Starting on May 18, 1848, the “Frankfurt
Assembly” worked to find ways to unite the various German states and write a
constitution. The Assembly was unable to pass resolutions and dissolved into endless
debate. After long and controversial discussions, the assembly produced the so-called
“Frankfurt Constitution,” which proclaimed a German Empire based on the principles
of parliamentary democracy. This constitution fulfilled the main demands of the liberal
and nationalist movements of the Vormärz and provided a foundation of basic rights,
both of which stood in opposition to Metternich’s system of restoration. The
parliament also proposed a constitutional monarchy headed by a hereditary emperor
(Kaiser).
However, King Frederick William IV of Prussia rejected the propositions of the
Frankfurt Assembly and unilaterally imposed a monarchist constitution to undercut

89
the democratic forces. This constitution took effect on December 5, 1848. On
December 5, 1848, the revolutionary Assembly was dissolved and replaced with the
bicameral legislature allowed under the monarchist Constitution. Otto von Bismarck
was elected to the first congress elected under the new monarchical constitution. By
late 1848, the Prussian aristocrats including Otto von Bismarck and generals had
regained power in Berlin. They were not defeated permanently during the incidents of
March, but had only retreated temporarily. General von Wrangel led the troops who
recaptured Berlin for the old powers, and King Frederick William IV of Prussia
immediately re-joined the old forces. In November, the king dissolved the new Prussian
parliament and put forth a constitution of his own based upon the work of the
assembly, yet maintaining the ultimate authority of the king. The achievements of the
revolutionaries of March 1848 were reversed in all of the German states. By 1851, the
basic rights from the Frankfurt Assembly had also been abolished nearly everywhere.
In the end, the revolution fizzled because of the divisions between the various factions
in Frankfurt. Particularly the calculating caution of the liberals and the failure of the
left to marshal popular support, the revolutionaries failed to gain success against the
overwhelming superiority of the monarchist forces.
The Revolution of 1848 failed in its attempt to unify the German-speaking states
because the “Frankfurt Assembly” reflected the many different interests of the German
ruling classes. Its members were unable to form coalitions and push for specific goals.
The first conflict arose over the goals of the assembly. The moderate liberals wanted to
draft a constitution to present to the monarchs, whereas the smaller group of radical
members wanted the assembly to declare itself as a law-giving parliament. They were
unable to overcome this fundamental division. They also did not take any definitive
action toward unification or the introduction of democratic rules. The assembly
declined into debate. While the French revolution drew on an existing nation state, the
democratic and liberal forces in Germany of 1848 were confronted with the need to
build a nation state and a constitutional at the same time, which overtaxed them.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Write the meaning of the German term, Aufklärung.
Answer.

b. Comment on the Burschenschaften.

Answer.

90
 c. Why “Frankfurt Assembly” constituted?
Answer.

d. Why revolution of 1848-49 failed?

Answer.

8.4 ROLE OF BISMARK IN THE GERMANY’S UNIFICATION

Otto von Bismarck was a bully and an absolutist. He had no faith in parliamentary
institution. He believed in autocracy and military force. To quote him: “No by
speechless and resolution of the majorities are the great questions of the day to be
decided, but by blood and iron.” He did not care for constitutional methods if those
stood in his way for the realisation of his aim. No wonder, he had to rule the country
in an autocratic manner for four years and got the money from the people without the
authority of the Landtag. The money having been got, the programme of the army
reform was carried out. It is hard to say that Bismarck did not have any plans of
uniting Germany from when he came to power. In his first speech to Parliament
Bismarck shares his views on what Prussia needs to do if it hopes to lead the German
states. He said: “Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism, but to its power…”
You can therefore, if you choose, look at all of Bismarck’s actions as the steps to
achieving the long-standing goal of Prussian military power, and through it, the unity
of the German people under Prussian rule.
Bismarck, however, did not succeed in swaying the people of parliament into passing
the money bill for the army. Instead, he told them that they were not needed and that
the money could be raised through taxation. To convince them Bismarck told them
that he had 200,000 troops to persuade them. In late 1863, a new Danish king was
chosen (King Frederick VII had left no children). The duchies of Holstein and
Schleswig said that inheritance was forbidden as it came through a female relative,
and they put forward their own heir to the throne - the Duke of Augustenburg. After
Denmark rejected their ultimatum to drop claims to the two duchies, Germany and
Austria went to war against Denmark together in January 1864, with very different
motives. Austria supported the Augustenburg claim to the throne, as did Prussia at
first. However, it later called for the annexation of the duchies rather than a new
monarch. After Denmark surrendered in July and gave up their claims to the two
duchies, the decision of who was to rule these two duchies became a political battle
between Austria and Prussia. In the end it was decided that Holstein would be

91
administered by Austria and Schleswig by Prussia. This left Bismarck with the option
of being able to pick a quarrel with Austria over Holstein when he felt the time was
right.
In 1865-66 Austria wanted war with Prussia. This was to be the long-awaited conflict
between the two sovereign German states, but even though Austria still had the bigger
army, Bismarck had politically prepared for the conflict; by 1866 Bismarck had
succeeded in securing French neutrality in the case of war with Austria, as well as
creating a secret alliance between Italy and Prussia should the conflict rise. This war
was crucial in deciding which of the two nations would gain supremacy over the
German states, therefore Bismarck’s goal of a united Germany under Prussian rule
now depended on the strength of the Prussian army.
Several factors allowed Prussia to beat Austria in what was to be known as the Seven
Weeks’ War. Firstly, the army reforms had been successfully carried out under
General Room, the Prussian Minister of War and the army was under command of
General Moltke, who was a gifted military commander. Secondly the secret alliance
with Italy forced Austria to fight a two-front war. Although they managed to defeat the
weak and inefficient Italian army quickly, it was not enough to defeat the
transportation system of troops and guns with five times the fire rate of the Austrian
weapons available to Prussia. It is important to note the treatment of Austria after its
defeat. Most of the Prussian leaders wanted to humiliate Austria. However, Bismarck
would not allow this and even threatened to commit suicide if they did not heed his
advice. Bismarck saw the importance in maintaining good terms with Austria as it still
had the support of many of the German states. The only territory that Austria lost in
the Seven Weeks’ War was Venetia that was given to Italy as part of the alliance deal.
The Treaty of Prague (August 1866), however, was bent on remodelling northern
Germany. Several German states were annexed and all the ones north of the River
Main were formed into the North German Confederation in 1867. Yet the south
German states remained independent. But even these south German states agreed to
sign a military alliance with Prussia. Bismarck now had two-thirds of Germany under
Prussian rule and was a Prussian hero even in Parliament.
As Bismarck saw it, to fully unify Germany, he needed another war that would bring
all the German states together and create a strong sense of nationalism. This war
came to be known as the Franco-Prussian / Franco-German War. By 1870, Bismarck
had let French-Prussian relations deteriorate as France now feared the very feasible
idea of a unified Germany. In the Luxemburg crisis of 1867, Bismarck first encouraged
France to expand into Luxemburg to whip up anti-French nationalism in Germany.

92
Then Bismarck shifted his support to the candidature for the Spanish throne that
ended with the Ems telegram from William I to Napoleon III. This telegram was edited
by Bismarck, who removed some words of it and turned this telegram into a hostile
message. This telegram, published in newspapers across Germany and France,
resultantly led directly to a war. As to secure that Austria did not decide to join France
in an attempt at a war of vengeance, Bismarck managed to make Russia promise that
they would join the war if Austria did. Fighting started in July 1870. The war was to
be a series of Prussian victories on the battle field due to their railway systems,
military tactics and Krupp’s (the big Prussian arms manufacturer) artillery. By August
180’000 French troops were being besieged in the fortress of Metz. The French General
MacMahon quickly gathered 130,000 troops and marched in an attempt to break the
siege of Metz. Napoleon III, General MacMahon and their troops were instead
intercepted by German forces and fought the decisive battle of the war in Sedan on the
1st of September 1870. France lost the battle and Napoleon surrendered. Under the
terms of surrender Germany took over 104,000 prisoners, including Napoleon III.
Even though the war had been decided at Sedan the fighting went on for another 6
months as the Germans sought to starve the city of Paris into an armistice. It came on
the 28th of January, 1871. Bismarck’s war to create a strong enough feeling of
nationalism to form a German nation had been a success. Although he had to use a
lot of skill and German nationalist feelings to convince the southern German states to
join the German Empire and to make William I of Prussia the Keiser of German.
Eventually, he succeeded in creating a Unified Germany. On the 18th of January,
1871, King William of Prussia took on the title (shouted out by the Grand Duke of
Baden) of Imperial and Royal Majesty, Keiser William of Germany, in the Hall of
Mirrors at Versailles.
a. Bismarck’s ‘Blood and Iron’ Policy
The “Blood and Iron” is a phrase that has become synonymous to Otto von Bismarck,
the man who has been acclaimed as the master-planner behind the German
Unification in 1871. Since his appointment as Chief Minister of Prussia in 1862,
Bismarck’s main goal was to increase the strength of the Prussian nation, and as he
saw it, military strength was what defined a strong nation. “It is not through speeches
and majority decisions that the great questions of the day are decided. It is by iron
and blood,” was how Bismarck strongly felt towards increasing the strength of a
nation. It is quite possible that when Bismarck looked at Germany, he saw simply the
best opportunity to create a powerful nation of military importance. Therefore, he
spent the years leading up till 1871 trying to create a unified Germany under Prussian

93
leadership. Bismarck did not lay down the groundwork and ideas for a unified
Germany, but what he did do was make one possible. Military reforms that allowed
successful wars, speeches made to rattle the feeling of nationalism inside the German
people. The final victory over Austria meant an end of Austrian presence as the head
of the German states. All these factors that led to a German Unification under Prussia
in 1871 were orchestrated by a Prussian Chief Minister and a German Chancellor
named Otto von Bismarck. If any the factors helping Bismarck unify Germany had not
been there, it may not have been possible to have done it in 1871. But Bismarck’s
significance lies in the manner in which he led all these factors together, whether as a
master-planner or a master-opportunist, he managed to lead Prussia into becoming
the German Empire of 1871.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Who was Bismarck?
Answer.

b. Comment on the Luxemburg crisis of 1867.

Answer.

c. Comment on the ‘Blood and Iron’ policy?

Answer.

8.5. SUMMARY
The unification of Germany was a long drawn process, in which Bismarck particularly
played a crucial role. After eighteen years, since Bismarck was appointed as
Chancellor, Germany was unified. His contributions were substantial. His personal
modification in the Ems telegram portrayed his personality of manipulating situations
into his advantage and isolation of opponents before war was examples of Realpolitik.
Having understood the concept of nationalism, Bismarck was able to use this to aid
his creation of Germany. If Bismarck ceased to exist in German politics, numerous
events would not have happened, arguably Germany would probably have not unified
by 1871. Prussian army legislations would have been rejected by parliament, leading
to possibly the abdication of Wilhelm I and Austria remaining as the dominant force in
the German confederation. However, by accounting other factors, Bismarck's role was
less significant. Ideas for the unification of Germany originated long before Bismarck
came to power. It has flourished since the death of the Holy Roman Empire and

94
resentment in Napoleonic Europe, which promoted nationalism. This was an
important factor, as Bismarck needed to rally all the States to defeat other powers.
The increasing strength of Prussian economic and military was a major factor,
arguably the most important aspect, as Bismarck heavily relied on successes over
France and Austria. Events within Europe must not be ignored, as many situations
provided opportunities for Bismarck. It was because of these circumstances that
enabled Bismarck to practice his foreign policies whilst maintaining the balance of
power in Europe. Without these major factors Bismarck would not have unified
Germany.
8.6. REFERENCES
o Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and
Standish Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations:
Their History and Their Culture, Volume - C/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab
Publishers & Distributors: Delhi.
o Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic
History of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
8.7. FURTHER READINGS
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
 Doyle, William, (2001), The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
8.8. MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Why German revolution of 1848-49 happened? And why it failed?
2. Write an essay on the process of German unification.
3. Who was Bismarck? How he contributed in the unification of German.

*****

95
 Chapter 9

HISTORICAL MAPS

Structure
9.0. Objectives
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Important Historical Places
9.3. Unification of Germany
9.4. Unification of Italy
9.5. Summary
9.6. References
9.7. Further Readings
9.8. Model Questions
9.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter you will be able to:

 Learn about the important historical places of early modern World.

 Understand the role of cities and places in major political developments in
Europe.
 Learn about the unification of Germany.
 Learn about the unification of Italy.
9.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the important historical cities and places of Europe, which
would help students to understand the European history in a more nuanced way. The
names of these cities and places are taken from all the four units of the syllabus, and
notes are written on these to provide an insight into the history of modern world.
8.2 IMPORTANT HISTORICAL PLACES
Paris
Paris is the capital city of France and is situated in the north-central part of the
country. Its located along the Seine River and occupies a central position in the rich
agricultural region known as the Paris Basin. The major events of the French
Revolution (1789) took place in Paris, including the storming of the Bastille (14 July,
1789), and the conveying of the king Louis XVI and the National Constituent Assembly

96
from Versailles to Paris (October 1789). It was the inhabitants of Paris, who
participated in the French Revolution and carried out the major political activities that
shaped the course of revolution. These developments in Paris played a significant role
in the abolition of serfdom, and privileges of nobility. During the course of the French
Revolution, several clubs (e.g., Jacobins, Cordeliers, etc) were formed in Paris, and
they played an important role in the political events of the Revolution years. It was
Paris, where the Legislative assembly and its leadership declared France a republic. In
December 1792, it placed the king Louis XVI on trial and subsequently, the execution
of the French king Louis XVI and his family took place in Paris on 21 January 1793.
The French king was beheaded by the guillotine, the frightful mechanical headsman
that had become the symbol of revolutionary fervor in 1790s. Paris also witnessed the
ascendency of Napoleon Bonaparte as the sovereign of French Empire. Under
Napoleon III (emperor from 1852-1870) Paris was modernized by Baron Haussmann,
who introduced modern sewer and water systems, rebuilt or developed markets, roads
and bridges.
London
London is the capital city of the United Kingdom and it is amongst the oldest of the
world’s great cities. This city is situated in southeastern England, lying astride the
River Thames some 80 km upstream from its estuary on the North Sea. Historically,
London grew from three distinct centers: first: the walled settlement founded by the
Romans on the banks of the Thames in the 1 st century AD; second: facing it across the
bridge on the lower gravels of the south bank, the suburb of Southwark; and third, a
mile upstream, on a great southward bend of the river, the City of Westminster. The
history of London even though starts from the Roman period, in the Middle Age it
witnessed major political developments and economic growth. By the late 7 th century
London had emerged as a major trading centre and it rose to become as a centre of
financial and military – and therefore political- power at the time of the Norman
Conquest (11th century). Towards the middle of the 16th century London underwent an
important growth in trade, which was boosted by the establishment of monopolies
such as those held by the Muscovy Company (1555), the Turkey (later Levant)
Company (1581), and the East India Company (1600). The population of the City and
its surrounding settlements reached 220,000 by the early years of the 17 th century.
London is one of the earliest cities of Europe that was affected by the Industrial
Revolution as this worldwide event originated in the England. The Industrial
Revolution turned London into one of the world’s first megacities having a population
of about 8 lacs by the mid-18th century. London, already a leading centre for the

97
world’s trade, served as a headquarters for the transfer of raw material, capital, and
manufactured products. Socially, commercially and financially London had been the
hub of the world economy from the late 18 th century to 1914. As a corollary to its great
wealth, fed by the profits of the trade with the East and West Indies and with the
Americas, London reigned supreme in matters of the theatre, literature, and the arts.
Rome
Rome is a historical city that is located in the central portion of the Italian peninsula,
on the Tiber River. Once the capital of the Roman Empire, whose armies and polity
defined the Western world in antiquity, Rome has been the spiritual and physical seat
of the Roman Catholic Church, and the site of major artistic and intellectual
achievement of the European civilization. The entry of Pope Martin V into Rome in
1420 marked the beginning of the Renaissance city and of the absolute papal rule that
lasted until 1870. Although Martin was neither a builder nor a patron of the arts, he
laid the foundations of government that made Rome the capital of a Renaissance state.
From this period the apostolic vice chamberlain, as governor of Rome, controlled
municipal offices, communal finances, and the statues of the city. The Rome and
surrounding Papal States (the various territories of the pope in central Italy) came
under the authoritarian papal rule. The popes attracted scholars and artists from
across Italy, and by the end of the 15th century Rome had become the principal centre
of Renaissance culture. The high point was reached under Leo X (reigned 1513-21),
with his plans for the new St. Peter’s Church and his patronage of such artists as
Michelangelo and Raphael. The sacking of Rome in 1527 by the armies of the Holy
Roman emperor Charles V ended the city’s preeminence as a Renaissance centre.
However, by 1600 Rome was fully recovered and had become once again a prosperous
cosmopolitan city. The armies of Napoleon occupied Rome for the first time in 1789
and in 1809 Rome and the Papal States were formally annexed into the French
Empire. With the defeat of Napoleon, Papal rule returned to Rome in 1814, and Popes
Leo XII and Gregory XVI promoted educational improvements here. With the liberal
attitude that characterized the early part of his reign, Pope Pius IX granted Rome a
constitution in 1848, but after the revolution of 1848-49 he became archconservative.
Rome’s early modern history reflects the long-standing tension between the spiritual
power of the papacy and the political power of the Italia state capital. Most of the
Papal States were included in the United Kingdom of Italy, proclaimed in 1861, but
Rome was excluded. Attempts by the military leader Giuseppe Garibaldi to capture the
city in 1862 and 1867 were unsuccessful. Rome was the last city-state to become part
of a unified Italy, and it did so only under duress, after the invasion of Italian troops in

98
1870. With this, Pope’s temporal power was lost forever. After a plebiscite in October
1870, Rome became the capital of a united Italy.
Berlin
At present, Berlin is a capital and chief urban centre of Germany. The city lies at the
heart of the North German Plain, athwart an east-west commercial and geographical
axis that helped make it the capital of the kingdom of Prussia and then, from 1871, of
a unified Germany. While still a small town, it became the capital of the electoral
princes of Brandenburg from the end of the 15 th century onward. From the 17th and
early 18th centuries, when the electors of Brandenburg (also kings of Prussia from
1701) developed into powerful figures on the European political stage, Berlin expanded
and here new castles, such as Charlottenburg Palace, were built. In 1701,
Brandenburg and Prussia formed the Kingdom of Prussia and Frederick III, Elector of
Brandenburg crowned himself as King Fredrick I in Prussia. He made Berlin the
capital of his new kingdom. During the reign of King Fredrick II, also known as
Fredrick the Great (1740-1786) Berlin became the centre of an absolute state and
enlightenment. Fredrick II was the most celebrated king of his time in entire Europe
and his principles and methods of “enlightened despotism” were admired and copied
by the rulers of his day.
Frankfurt
Frankfurt city lies along the Main River about 19 miles (30 km) upstream from its
confluence with the Rhine River at Maniz in Germany. The name Frankfurt means
‘Ford/passage/crossing of the Franks’ (i.e., Franks, a Germanic tribe). Frankfurt was
a free imperial city from 1375 until 1806, when Napoleon Bonaparte made it the seat
of government for the prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1810, the
city became the capital of the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt, created by Napoleon
Bonaparte. From 1815, when Napoleon was defeated, Frankfurt was again a free city,
where in 1848-49 the Frankfurt National Assembly met. In the revolution of 1848,
Frankfurt was the centre of political development. Starting on May 18, 1848, the
“Frankfurt Assembly” worked to find ways to unite the various German states and
write a constitution. The assembly produced the so-called “Frankfurt Constitution,”
which proclaimed a German Empire based on the principles of parliamentary
democracy. This constitution fulfilled the main demands of the liberal and nationalist
movements and also proposed a constitutional monarchy headed by a hereditary
emperor (Kaiser). However, King Frederick William IV of Prussia rejected the
propositions of the Frankfurt Assembly and unilaterally imposed a monarchist
constitution to undercut the democratic forces. This constitution took effect on
99
December 5, 1848. On December 5, 1848, the revolutionary Assembly was dissolved
and replaced with the bicameral legislature allowed under the monarchist
Constitution. By 1851, the basic rights from the Frankfurt Assembly had also been
abolished nearly everywhere. In the end, the revolution fizzled because of the divisions
between the various factions in Frankfurt. From 1816 to 1866 the city was the seat of
the German Bundestag (Federal Diet) and thus the capital of Germany.
Vienna
Vienna is now the capital and a largest city of Austria (a European nation). From 1558
to 1918, it was an imperial city – until 1806 the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and
then the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During the Renaissance, Vienna was
a leader in science and fine arts, and the University of Vienna (established 1365) was
a centre of humanism. Napoleon’s armies occupied Vienna in 1805 and again in 1909.
Inflation and state bankruptcy followed the Napoleonic Wars. Politically, however,
Vienna held a central position in the restoration of Europe at the Congress of Vienna
(1814-1815) under the leadership of the powerful statesman Prince Metternich. The
Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) that was organized to draw up a permanent peace
settlement for Europe after the defeat of Napoleon. In the Congress at Vienna, the Tsar
of Russia, the emperor of Austria, and the kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria and
Wurttemberg assembled to decide the fate of Napoleon and the rest of Europe. Great
Britain was represented by Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington in this
congress. On the other hand, from France came Talleyrand, who had served as foreign
minister at the court of Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna was a first major effort on
the part of European powers that came together at Vienna to discuss the fate of
Europe. It resolved the territorial disputes arising out of Napoleonic Wars and
European powers with common consensus prepared a ground for peace in Europe for
about a hundred years.
Waterloo
The battle of Waterloo took place on 18 June, 1815 and it marked Napoleon
Bonaparte’s final defeat. Waterloo is a settlement in Belgium, which was part of the
United Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time of this battle. The battle ended
Napoleon’s 23 years long recurrent warfare between France and the other powers of
Europe. It was fought between Napoleon’s 72,000 troops and the combined forces of
the Duke of Wellington’s allied army of 68,000 (with British, Dutch, Belgian, and
German units). It was aided by 45,000 Prussian soldiers, who were under the
command of Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher. The armies of both Wellington and
Blucher were stationed close to the northeastern border of France, and Napoleon
100
planned to attack them separately in a hope of destroying them before they could join
in a coordinated attack on France with the help from other European powers. On 16
June, Napoleon successfully attacked the bulk of the Prussian army at the Battle of
Ligny with his main force, and it caused the Prussians to withdraw; but they were in
position to help Wellington in case of a war with Napoleon. Upon learning that the
Prussian army was able to support him, Wellington decided to otter battle on the
Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment across the Brussels road, near the village of Waterloo.
Here he withstood repeated attacks by the French throughout the afternoon of 18
June, and soon received aid from the Prussian armies. Soon the French army was
routed. Napoleon abdicated four days later, and coalition forces of European powers
entered Paris on 7 July 1815. The defeat at Waterloo ended Napoleon’s rule as
Emperor of the French. The results of the battle of Waterloo shaped the subsequent
course of European as well as the world history, and it inaugurated an era of peace,
stability and industrial growth in Europe that lasted till the First World War (1914-
1918). The battle definitively ended the series of wars that had convulsed Europe, and
involved many other regions of the world, since the French Revolution (1789). The
battle of Waterloo also ended the First French Empire and the political as well as
military career of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Write a short note on Paris.
Answer.

b. Write a short note on London.

Answer.

c. Write a short note on Rome.

Answer.

d. Write a short note on Berlin.

Answer.

e. Write a short note on Vienna.

101
 Answer.

f. Write a short note on Frankfurt.

Answer.

g. Write a short note on Waterloo.

Answer.

Moscow
Moscow is a capital city of Russia, which is located in the far western part of the
country. Since it was first mentioned in the chronicles of 1147, Moscow has played a
vital role in Russian history. It became the capital of Muscovy (the Grand Principality
of Moscow) in the late 13th century; hence the people of Moscow are known as
Muscovites. Today Moscow is not only the political centre of Russia but also the
country’s most populous city and its industrial, cultural, scientific and educational
capital. For more than 600 years Moscow has been the spiritual centre of the Russian
Orthodox Church. It stands on the Moscow River, a tributary of the Oka and thus of
the Volga, in the centre of the vast plain of European Russia. Much of the Moscow was
reconstructed after it was occupied by the French armies under Napoleon Bonaparte
in 1812 and almost entirely destroyed by fire.
New York
New York City and port are located at the mouth of the Hudson River in the
southeastern New York state of the United States of America. In 1524, the Italian
navigator Giovanni da Verrazzano was the first European to enter the harbor, which
he named Santa Margarita, and he reported that the hills surrounding the vast
expanse of New York Bay appeared to be rich in minerals. Only the third largest
American port at the time of the American Revolution, New York gradually achieved
trade domination and by the mid-1800s handled more than half of the country’s
oceangoing travelers and commercial trade. After 1900 New York was the world’s
busiest port. In the American Revolution, New York city was one of the major sites of
political confrontations between the Patriots and the Redcoats. One of the important
revolutionary figures, Alexander Hamilton was from New York. The battle of New York
was fought in 1776-77 for gaining control over the Port of New York during the
American Revolution between British forces under General Sir William Howe and the

102
Continental Army (of Patriots) under General George Washington. New York was the
major British base in the battle against the American revolutionary forces. In this
battle, George Washington was defeated by the British armies and it remained under
British control until the end of the Revolutionary war in 1783.
Crimea
Crimean Peninsula is coterminous with present day autonomous republic of Crimea,
Ukraine. It lies between the Black Sea and Sea of Azov and having an area of 27,000
square km. Here, the Crimean War took place from October 1853 to February 1856. It
was a conflict which involved Russia against an alliance of Britain, France, the
Ottoman Empire, Sardinia and the Austrian Empire. It began as Russia pursued an
expansionist policy at the cost of the declining Ottoman Empire. At dispute was the
rights of the Ottoman Empire’s Orthodox Christian minority in the Holy Land as
negotiated in the Peace Treaty of Kaynarca that ended the Russian-Turkish war of
1768. According to the treaty Russians were given responsibility to guard the interest
of the Orthodox Christian minority in the Ottoman Empire, but France, a Roman
Catholic country, claimed that responsibility and sovereign authority over the entire
Christian population. The three major encounters in the Crimean War were the Battle
of Balaklava, the Battle of Inkerman and the Battle of Malakhov. Even though Russia
faced defeats at different occasions, the war was ended with the treaty of Paris.
Representatives from Russia, Turkey, France, Britain, Sardinia, Austria and Prussia
participated in peace negotiations which resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Paris
on March 30, 1856. The Treaty of Paris allowed temporary peace in Europe.
Trafalgar
Trafalgar or Cape Trafalgar refers to the area in the South-West coast of Spain
(between Cadiz and the Strait of Gibraltar), where the decisive naval battle took place
between the French-Spanish fleets and the British fleets. The naval battle took place
on 21 October 1805 as a part of the Napoleonic Wars. This battle established British
naval supremacy for more than hundred years. A fleet of 33 ships, comprising 18
French and 15 Spanish ships, under Admiral Pierre de Villeneuve fought a British fleet
of 27 ships under Admiral Horatio Nelson. At the end of September 1805, Villeneuve
had received orders to leave Cadiz and land troops at Naples to support the French
campaign in southern Italy. But he had to face the British fleets at Cape Trafalgar on
21 October. Villeneuve ordered his fleet to form a single line heading north, and
Nelson ordered his fleet to form two squadrons and attack Villeneuve’s line from the
west, at right angles. Nelson’s strategy proved successful and by the evening
Villeneuve was defeated and he surrendered to the British. On the other hand, Nelson
103
was mortally wounded by a sniper, but when he died the British fleets have completed
the victory over the French-Spanish naval fleets. About 1,500 British seamen were
killed or wounded, but no British ships were lost. Trafalgar shattered forever
Napoleon’s plans to invade England.
Venice
Venice is a city and major seaport in the northern Italy. An island city, it was once the
centre of a maritime republic and the greatest seaport in the late medieval Europe and
the continent’s commercial and cultural link to Asia. Venice is unique
environmentally, architecturally, and historically, and in its days as a republic the city
was styled as la serenissima (i.e., “the most serene”, or “sublime”). Situated at the
northwestern end of the Adriatic Sea, Venice lies on an archipelago in the crescent-
shaped Venice Lagoon. Between 1140 and 1160 AD, Venice became a republic and all
political and administrative matters were placed in the hands of the Great Council. It
was a major center of art and architecture during the Middle Ages, the Renaissance
and Baroque periods and here developed a unique style of art known as the Venetian
school. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Venice along with Florence and Rome,
became one of the most important centers of art in Europe, and numerous wealthy
Venetians became patrons of the arts. The main source of wealth of Venetians was
trade in the Middle Ages and it was a rich and prosperous Maritime Republic that
controlled a vast sea and trade empire. The end of the Venice republic came soon after
the outbreak of the French Revolution and it was occupied by Austria in 1797. In
1848, the revolutionary leader Daniele Manin set up a provisional republican
government at Venice, but it fell the following year. After the defeat of Austria by the
Prussians in 1866, Venice was ceded to Italy, which had been a united kingdom since
1861. It has still remained a major Italian port in the northern Adriatic Sea and is one
of the world’s oldest tourist and cultural centres.
Bonn
Bonn is a city in North Rhine-Westphalia Land of Germany. The city is located on the
Rhine River and from 1949 to 1990 it was the provisional capital of West Germany,
and it served as the seat of the German federal government from 1990 until 1999-
2000, when the government completed its move to Berlin (designated the capital in
1991). The oldest settlement known by the name of Bonn was a river crossing
discovered by Roman legionnaires in the 1st century BC. Bonn grew in importance
from the 13th century, and became the capital of the Electorate and Archbishopric of
Cologne, which was then a sovereign state. This era ended in 1794, when the French
Revolutionary forces occupied the city. In 1815, Bonn was awarded to Prussia by the
104
Congress of Vienna. There was little development until the second half of the 19 th
century, when the city became a fashionable residential town. It was severely damaged
during World War II. Development was accelerated after 2949, when Bonn was chosen
as the provisional capital of West Germany. Bonn is also known for being the
birthplace of famous musician, Ludwig van Beethoven.
Budapest
Budapest is a capital city of Hungary and has been continuously settled since
prehistoric times. It consists of two parts, Buda and Pest, which are situated on
opposite sides of the river and connected by a series of bridges. Although the city’s
roots date to Roman times and even earlier, modern Budapest is essentially an
outgrowth of the 19th century Empire of Austria-Hungary, when Hungary was three
times larger than the present country. Hungary’s reduction in size following World
War I (1914-1918) did not prevent Budapest from becoming, after Berlin, the second
largest city in central Europe. Budapest was created in 1872, when Pest and Buda
were united into a single municipal borough comprising 10 districts. Between 1873
and the communist takeover of the city after World War II, Budapest enjoyed self-
government. After unification the spectacular growth of the city began in earnest and
rapid industrialization took place here.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Write a short note on Moscow.
Answer.

b. Write a short note on New York.

Answer.

c. Write a short note on Crimea.

Answer.

d. Write a short note on Trafalgar.

Answer.

105
 e. Write a short note on Venice.
Answer.

f. Write a short note on Bonn.

Answer.

g. Write a short note on Budapest.

Answer.

9.3 UNIFICATION OF GERMANY

The unification of Germany was a long drawn process, in which Otto von Bismarck (1815-
1898) played a crucial role. Having understood the concept of nationalism, Bismarck was
able to use this to aid his creation of Germany. Ideas for the unification of Germany
originated long before Bismarck came to power. Formally the unification occurred on
January 18, 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles in France. Princes of
the German states gathered there to proclaim Wilhelm I of Prussia as German
Emperor after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Unofficially, the de facto
transition of most of the German-speaking populations into a federated organization of
states had been developing in piecemeal for some time through alliances formal and
informal between princely rulers. Self-interests of the various parties hampered the
process over nearly a century of autocratic experimentation beginning in the era of the
Napoleonic Wars, which saw the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (1806) and
subsequent rise of German nationalism. The political developments such as 1848-49
revolution, Crimean war (1854-56) and Franco- Prussian war (1870-71) prepared the
ground for German unification. The unification of Germany brought different German
principalities in union with Prussia at its head.
9.4 UNIFICATION OF ITALY
The events in Italy ran a course parallel to that which had led to the unification of
Germany. Ital before 1848 was a patchwork of petty states including Sardinia in the
north, the Papal States in the central region, and the kingdom of Two Sicilies in the
south. The former republics of Lombardy and Venetia were held by Austria, while the
puppets of Habsburg (ruling house of Austria)) ruled in Tuscany, Parma and Moderna.
After the revolution of 1848, the demand of Italy’s unification grew manifold and with
106
the consistent efforts of nationalist leaders like Mazzini, Camillo di Cavour and
Giuseppe Garibaldi the formal unification of Italy was completed in 1870, when
Napoleon III was forced to withdraw the French troops from Rome which was stationed
there since 1849. That was due to the fact that Napoleon had to fight against Prussia
and it was necessary to collect troops from everywhere. It was in this way that the
unification of Italy was completed in 1870 as a result of the efforts of the Italian
patriots, foreign help and the force of circumstances.

Self Assessment questions.

a. Write a short note on the unification of Germany.
Answer.

b. Write a short note on the unification of Italy.

Answer.

9.5 SUMMARY
The above discussion on different cities and places of Europe and the early modern
World shows the important role that these cities and places have had played in
various political, cultural and economic developments of the period between 1500 and
1870 AD. Evidently, different European and American cities has been the arena of
major historical changes like the Renaissance, Reformation, French Revolution,
Industrial Revolution, American Revolution and so forth.
9.6 REFERENCES
 Burns, Edward MacNall, Philip Lee Ralph, Robert E. Learner, and Standish
Meacham, (1991 Special Indian Edition), World Civilizations: Their History and
Their Culture, Volume - C/Seventh Edition, Goyal Saab Publishers &
Distributors: Delhi.
 Encyclopedia, Britannica (website: https://www.britannica.com/)
 Phukan, Meenaxi, (2000), Rise of the Modern West: Social and Economic History
of Early Europe. Macmillan Publishers: Delhi.
9.7 FURTHER READINGS
 Davies, Norman, (1996), Europe: A History. Oxford University Press.
 Mason, David S., (2012), A Concise History of Modern Europe, Orient
Blackswan: New Delhi.
107
9.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. How Paris is associated with the French Revolution? Discuss.
2. How London is associated with the Industrial Revolution? Discuss.
3. Write a note on the treaty of Vienna. How it contributed in the establishment
of peace in Europe?
4. How New York is associated with the American Revolution? Discuss.
5. Why the battle of Trafalgar was fought? Discuss.
6. Why the battle of Crimea was fought? Discuss.

*****

108
1. Map: Important Historical Places

109
2. Map: Unification of Germany

110
3. Map: Unification of Italy

111