Revolutionary Spring - Europe Aflame and The Fight for a New World 1848-1849 (Christopher Clark, 2023)

(754 pages)

This took a while to read but was thoroughly worth it. The events of these two years are amazing. 

Google Gemini's 150-word blurb:

"Christopher Clark's Revolutionary Spring provides a panoramic history of the 1848 revolutions that swept across Europe, arguing against the traditional view of them as a failure. Instead, he casts the simultaneous continental upheavals as "the particle collision chamber" of the nineteenth century, a critical turning point that profoundly shaped the future.

Clark traces the origins of the revolts to a mix of economic precarity, social inequality, and a collision of emergent political ideologies, including liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism. The book vividly recounts the rapid spread of uprisings, constitutional changes, and the subsequent, often ruthless, counter-revolution. He highlights how the movements forced open debates on social rights, democracy, and capitalism. Though short-lived, the 1848 revolutions left a profound and lasting legacy on European political thought and public life."

Part of my interest was the rather strange times we're going through here in the 2020s. Donald Trump's emergence (going back to mid 2010s) has been and remains, for reasons I don't really grasp, a perceived threat to the way political business has been done in the US for decades. A dire threat. There exists a continuing resistance that certainly reminds of mid-19th century elements described in this book.

Though vast differences. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic era had stirred the pot of sentiments that hadn't really developed previously - national identity, the desire for a constitution, political viewpoints arranged left to right (or vice versa) - all this getting more and more refined.

Similar problems as today - the leadership of the left somehow refused "to have any enemies on the left" - leaving them stuck with positions that just didn't have much support. Mazzini’s idea for Italy - that the revolution needed the blood of martyrs to feed success - sounds familiar. The familiar trope of students locking themselves into university buildings - always way too sure of themselves. A bunch of folks who take advantage of unrest to just plain loot.

When the excitement and glamour of change and revolution flips to mundane matters of governance - much harder. Most governments conceded some form of constitution, though some retook control through different methods than prior to the revolutions. 

Different types of revolutionaries. Poor people who wanted better wages, or even just food, some poor harvests were involved here (timing of potato famine?) Then the more theoretical types who were looking for social change, a constitution, etc.  Often minimal understanding of the poor or rural folk.  Elements of the “haves” v. “have-mores” a driver as much as the “have-nots” as drivers.

Widespread across Europe - astonishing scope and speed.

Little preparation - groups assemble to fill a governance void.  Existing regimes often in a position to regain.  Parliaments that might end up supporting monarchy - for a while.

Louis Kossuth incredibly popular - led to naming places after him (such as Kossuth County, Iowa). His popularity did wane however.

This just scratches the surface, a lot to learn here.  I think.