Napoleon se rol in die afskaffing van diensbaarheid

Napoleon se rol in die afskaffing van diensbaarheid



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Dit is bekend dat Napoleon grondwette aan 'n stel lande gegee het. Die grondwette is in die styl van die Franse geskryf.

Hoeveel van die Napoleontiese konstitusies het 'n rol gespeel in die afskaffing van diensbaarheid?

Ek weet dat die diensbaarheid ten minste in Hertogdom as Warskou en Westfalen gekanselleer is, maar daar is beslis meer. Aan die ander kant kon sommige plekke vooraf reeds van diensbaarheid ontslae geraak het. En sommige kan dit herstel net na die val van Napoleon.


Elke keer as Napoleon land verower het, het die Napoleontiese Kode gevolg. Die Napoleontiese Kode het alle feodalisme afgeskaf, en daarom was slawerny nie meer nodig nie, want dit was die laagste sosiale klas in die feodale samelewing.


Die emansipasie van die Russiese diensknegte, 1861

Michael Lynch kyk nuut na die belangrikste hervorming van die 19de-eeuse Rusland.

In 1861 is diensbaarheid, die stelsel wat die Russiese boere onherroeplik aan hul eienaars vasgemaak het, op keiser se bevel afgeskaf. Vier jaar later is slawerny in die VSA insgelyks onwettig verklaar deur presidensiële bevel. Tsaar Alexander II (1855-81) deel met sy pa, Nicholas I, die oortuiging dat Amerikaanse slawerny onmenslik was. Dit is nie so skynheilig as wat dit eers mag voorkom nie. Die diensbaarheid wat sedert die middel van die sewentiende eeu in Rusland bestaan ​​het, was tegnies nie slawerny nie. Die grondeienaar het nie die serf besit nie. Dit was in teenstelling met die stelsel in die VSA waar die negerslawe losskakel was, dit is in die wet beskou as die besteebare eiendom van hul meesters. In Rusland was die tradisionele verhouding tussen heer en dienskneg op grond gebaseer. Omdat hy op sy grond gewoon het, was die dienskneg aan die heer gebind.

Die Russiese stelsel dateer uit 1649 en die instelling van 'n wetlike kode wat die grondeienaar totale gesag verleen het om die lewe en werk van die boere wat op sy grond gewoon het, te beheer. Aangesien dit die bevoegdheid insluit om die diensknegte die reg te weier om elders te verhuis, was die verskil tussen slawerny en diensbaarheid in die praktyk so klein dat dit nie te onderskei was nie. Die doel agter die toekenning van sulke magte aan die Russiese dvoriane (adel van grondeienaars) in 1649 was om die edeles afhanklik te maak van, en dus lojaal aan, die tsaar. Hulle sou daardie lojaliteit in praktiese vorm uitspreek deur die tsaar as militêre offisiere of openbare amptenare te dien. Op hierdie manier het die Romanof -keisers Rusland se burgerlike burokrasie en die gewapende dienste opgebou as liggame van staatsamptenare wat 'n gevestigde belang het om die tsaristiese staat te behou.

Die slawe het net meer as 'n derde van die bevolking uitgemaak en vorm die helfte van die boere. Hulle was die sterkste gekonsentreer in die sentrale en westelike provinsies van Rusland.

Waarom was dit nodig om Serfdom te beëindig?

In 'n aantal opsigte was diensbaarheid nie dieselfde as die feodalisme wat in baie dele van die voormoderne Europa bestaan ​​het nie. Lank voor die 19de eeu is die feodale stelsel egter in Wes -Europa laat vaar toe dit na die kommersiële en industriële era oorgegaan het. Die keiserlike Rusland het nie so 'n oorgang ondergaan nie. Dit het ekonomies en sosiaal agteruit gebly. Byna alle Russe het dit erken. Sommige, bekend as slavofiele, was verheug en beweer dat heilige Rusland 'n unieke God-geïnspireerde nasie is wat niks te leer het van die korrupte nasies in die weste nie. Maar baie Russe, uit alle geledere en klasse, het aanvaar dat hervorming van een of ander aard onvermydelik is as hul land sou vorder.

Dit het gerieflik geword om diensbaarheid te gebruik om al die huidige swakhede van Rusland te verduidelik: dit was verantwoordelik vir militêre onbevoegdheid, voedseltekorte, oorbevolking, burgerlike wanorde, industriële agterstand. Dit was oorvereenvoudigde verklarings, maar daar was 'n mate van waarheid in hulle: diensbaarheid was simptomaties van die onderliggende probleme wat Rusland van vooruitgang weerhou het, en dit was dus 'n besonder maklike teiken vir die intelligentsia, die intellektuele wat in hul geskrifte aangevoer het vir die liberalisering van die Russiese samelewing, te begin met die emansipasie van die uitgebuite boere.

Soos gereeld in die Russiese geskiedenis gebeur het, was dit die oorlog wat die saak gedwing het. Die Russiese staat het die Krimoorlog in 1854 betree met groot hoop op oorwinning. Twee jaar later het dit 'n hewige nederlaag gely deur die geallieerde leërs van Frankryk, Brittanje en Turkye. Die skok vir Rusland was diep. Die nasie was nog altyd trots op sy krygskrag. Nou was dit verneder.

Rol van Alexander II

Deur 'n vreemde wending van die lot, het nederlaag in die oorlog vir die nuwe tsaar van waarde geblyk. Alhoewel hy van kleins af opgelei is vir die regering, het buitelandse waarnemers opgemerk hoe verskillend en onseker hy lyk. Die oorlog het dit alles verander. Toe hy in 1855 in die middel van die konflik op die troon kom, kon Alexander II Rusland nie red van militêre mislukking nie, maar die vernedering het hom oortuig dat as sy land stabiliteit en vrede in die huis sou hê en in die buiteland geëerd sou word, militêr en binneland hervormings was uiters noodsaaklik. Die eerste stap op die pad sou wees om die heerskappy te verwyder, waarvan die duidelike ondoeltreffendheid nie die heer, die boer of die nasie bevoordeel nie. Alexander verklaar dat, ten spyte van Rusland se nederlaag, die einde van die oorlog 'n goue oomblik in die geskiedenis van die land was. Dit was die uur dat elke Rus, onder beskerming van die wet, 'die vrugte van sy eie arbeid' kon begin geniet.

Alexander het reg gedink die tyd was voordelig. Daar word al lank besef dat grondhervorming nodig is. By die sosiale en ekonomiese argumente is nou kragtige militêre argumente gevoeg. Die weermag was die groot simbool van Rusland se waarde. Solank sy leër sterk bly, kan Rusland dit bekostig om sy agterstand as 'n nasie te ignoreer. Maar die Krim -nederlaag het hierdie idee van Rusland se onoorwinlikheid ondermyn. Min het nou beredeneerde besware teen hervorming gehad. Dienskneg het klaarblyklik nie gewerk nie. Dit het nie die kaliber van die soldaat wat Rusland benodig, verskaf nie.

In 1856, die tweede jaar van sy bewind, kondig Alexander II (1855-81) aan die edeles van Rusland aan dat 'die bestaande toestand van die besit van siele nie onveranderd kan bly nie'. Dit is beter om die slang van bo af te begin vernietig as om te wag tot die tyd dat dit homself van onder begin vernietig '. Hierdie woorde is gereeld aangehaal. Wat minder gereeld aangehaal word, is sy volgende sin: 'Ek vra julle, here, om uit te vind hoe dit alles voltooi kan word.' Alexander was vasbeslote oor emansipasie, maar hy oordeel dit skerp - deur aan die grondeienaars oor te gee die verantwoordelikheid om te verduidelik hoe dit gedoen moet word - hy het dit vir hulle baie moeilik gemaak om sy bevel te weerstaan ​​of hom te blameer as daar later geblyk het dat hulle planne foutief was. Dit was 'n bewys van die merkwaardige mag en invloed wat die tsaar as absolute heerser uitgeoefen het.

Gedurende die volgende vyf jaar het duisende amptenare wat in 'n reeks komitees sit, planne opgestel vir die afskaffing van diensbaarheid. Toe hul werk afgehandel is, het hulle hul voorstelle aan Alexander voorgelê, wat dit dan formeel in 'n keiserlike afkondiging uitgereik het. Toe dit uiteindelik, in 1861, aangebied is, bevat die Statuut van die Emansipasie, wat die Proklamasie vergesel het, 22 afsonderlike maatreëls waarvan die besonderhede 360 ​​nou gedrukte bladsye van 'n baie groot volume gevul het. Alexander het verklaar dat die basiese doel van emansipasie was om almal wat by diensbaarheid, sowel as diensknegte as grondeienaars betrokke was, tevrede te stel:

Deur Goddelike Voorsienigheid geroep Ons het in ons harte gesweer om die missie wat aan ons toevertrou is, te vervul en om met ons toegeneentheid en ons keiserlike versigtigheid al ons getroue onderdane van elke rang en toestand te omring.

Verraad van die Boere?

Indrukwekkend alhoewel hierdie vryhede die eerste keer gelyk het, het dit gou geblyk dat dit vir die boere baie duur was. Dit was nie hulle nie, maar die verhuurders wat die begunstigdes was. Dit behoort ons nie te verbaas nie; daarna was dit die dvoriane wat die emansipasievoorstelle opgestel het. Die vergoeding wat die grondeienaars ontvang het, was ver voor die markwaarde van hul eiendom. Hulle was ook geregtig om te besluit watter deel van hul besittings hulle sou prysgee. Dit was nie verbasend dat hulle die beste grond vir hulself gehou het nie. Die slawe het die oorskiet gekry. Die data toon dat die verhuurders twee derdes van die grond behou het terwyl die kleinboere slegs 'n derde ontvang het. Die aanbod van grond van bekostigbare kwaliteit aan die boere was so beperk dat dit beperk was tot die aankoop van smal stroke wat moeilik was om te onderhou en wat min kos of wins oplewer.

Terwyl die grondeienaars finansiële vergoeding gekry het vir wat hulle prysgegee het, moes die kleinboere vir hul nuwe eiendom betaal. Aangesien hulle geen spaargeld gehad het nie, het hulle 'n voorskot van 100 persent voorgeskryf, 80 persent deur die staatsbank en die ander 20 deur die verhuurders. Dit was 'n ruim aanbod, maar soos met enige leningstransaksie was die vangs in die terugbetalings. Die kleinboere het hulself opgesaal met aflossingsbetalings wat 'n lewenslange las geword het wat dan aan hul kinders oorgedra moes word.

Die beperkings op die boere het nie daar geëindig nie. Om te voorkom dat emansipasie te veel ontwrigting veroorsaak, het die regering die boere aangemoedig om in hul plekke te bly. Dit was maklik om te bereik omdat die oorgrote meerderheid van die voormalige diensknegte om ooglopende redes hul erfgrond gekoop het uit die landgoedere waar hulle reeds woon. Dit was ook so dat die grond wat te koop was, afkomstig was van 'n stuk grond wat aan die dorp toegestaan ​​is en dan aan individuele boere verkoop is.

'N Verdere hulp aan die owerhede om die beheer te behou, was die herorganisasie van die plaaslike regering, wat een van die belangrikste hervormings was wat gevolg het na die emansipasie. Die regering het deur sy land 'kommandante' (amptenare aangestel om toesig te hou oor emansipasie) daarop aangedring dat die mir (die dorpskommune) word die fokus van die lewe op die platteland. Die motief was nie kultureel nie, maar administratief. Die mir 'n effektiewe organisasie sou wees vir die invordering van belasting waarop die vrygelate dienaars nou aanspreeklik was, sou dit ook 'n beheermeganisme wees om die orde op die platteland te handhaaf. Die bevryde Russiese boer was waarskynlik na 1861 net so beperk as wat 'n dienskneg was. In plaas daarvan om aan die heer vasgemaak te word, was die boer nou aan die dorp vasgemaak.

Dit alles was die mengsel van vrees en diepe afkeer wat die Russiese establishment tradisioneel teenoor die boerdery gevoel het. Daar word dikwels minagtend na die 'donker massas' verwys, maar die boere word beskou as 'n gevaarlike mag wat afgehou moet word. Onder die vrygewige woorde waarin Emansipasie ingehuldig is, was die oortuiging dat die gewone mense in Rusland, tensy dit beheer en gelei word, 'n baie ernstige bedreiging vir die bestaande orde van dinge is. Wat emansipasie ook al vir die boere aangebied het, dit was nie egte vryheid nie.

Die betekenis van emansipasie

Emansipasie was die eerste in 'n reeks maatreëls wat Alexander getref het as deel van 'n program wat regs- en administratiewe hervorming en die uitbreiding van pers- en universiteitsvryhede insluit. Maar agter al hierdie hervormings lê 'n bybedoel. Alexander II was om sy eie onthalwe nie liberaal nie. Volgens amptelike rekords wat deur die Ministerie van Binnelandse Sake gehou is (gelykstaande aan die Binnelandse Sake in Brittanje) was daar tussen 1826 en 1854 712 boere -opstande in Rusland. Deur sommige van die maatreëls toe te staan ​​wat die intelligentsia gevra het, terwyl dit eintlik verskerp het beheer oor die kleinboere, was Alexander van plan om die sosiale en politieke bedreiging vir die gevestigde stelsel wat die figure skrikwekkend verteenwoordig, te verminder. Bowenal het hy gehoop dat 'n geëmansipeerde boerdery, dankbaar vir die geskenke wat 'n oorvloedige tsaar aan hulle gegee het, fisies fiks en moreel waardiger rekrute sal verskaf vir die leërs van Rusland, die simbool en waarborg van die grootheid van Rusland as 'n nasie.

Daar is 'n gevoel dat die besonderhede van Emansipasie minder belangrik was as die feit van die hervorming self. Wat ook al die tekortkominge, emansipasie was die voorspel tot die mees volgehoue ​​hervormingsprogram wat die keiserlike Rusland nog beleef het (sien die tydlyn). Daar is ook die ironie dat so 'n ingrypende stap nie ingevoer kon word nie, behalwe deur 'n heerser met absolute magte wat dit nie in 'n demokrasie kon gedoen het nie. Die enigste vergelykbare sosiale verandering van so 'n omvang was dat president Lincoln die negerslawe in 1865 bevry het. Maar as 'n moderne Russiese historikus (Alexander Chubarov, Die brose ryk, New York, 1999, p.75) het uitlokkend daarop gewys: 'die [Russiese] emansipasie is op 'n oneindig groter skaal uitgevoer en is bereik sonder burgeroorlog en sonder verwoesting of gewapende dwang'.

Maar as die prestasie behoorlik opgemerk en gekrediteer is, dui agteraf daarop dat emansipasie in wese 'n mislukking was. Dit het verwagtinge laat opvlam en dit laat vaar. Rusland het belofte gegee om 'n nuwe dagbreek binne te gaan, maar het daarna in die duisternis teruggetrek. Dit is geneig om aan te dui dat Alexander II en sy regering doelbewus van plan was om die boere te verraai. Dit was beslis die argument wat deur radikale kritici van die regime gebruik is. Dit is egter belangrik om in ag te neem dat grondhervorming altyd tyd neem om te werk. Dit kan nooit 'n vinnige oplossing wees nie. Alexander se belangrikste motief by die bekendstelling van emansipasie was ongetwyfeld die begeerte om resultate te lewer wat voordelig was vir sy regime. Maar dit beteken nie dat hy onopreg was in die begeerte om die toestand van die boere te verhoog nie.

Waar hy die skuld kan kry, is in sy versuim om hervorming ver genoeg te stoot. Die feit is dat Alexander II gely het onder die ontstellende dilemma wat al die hervormende tsare van Petrus die Grote getref het - hoe om hervorming te bewerkstellig sonder om die belange van die bevoorregte klasse wat die keiserlike Rusland uitgemaak het, te benadeel. Dit was 'n vraag wat nooit bevredigend beantwoord is nie, omdat dit nooit behoorlik gekonfronteer is nie. Elke keer as hul planne nie uitwerk nie of moeilik bereik word, laat vaar die Romanovs hervorming en wend hulle tot dwang en onderdrukking.

Emansipasie was bedoel om Rusland ekonomiese en sosiale stabiliteit te gee en sodoende die weg voor te berei vir sy industriële en kommersiële groei. Maar dit het geëindig in mislukking. Dit het die bevoorregte klasse laat skrik en die progressiewe mense teleurgestel. Dit het te ver gegaan vir die slawe in die hof wat wou hê dat Rusland aan sy ou maniere moet vasklou en die korrupsie wat met die Westerse moderniteit gepaard gaan, vermy. Dit het nie ver genoeg gegaan vir die progressiewe wat geglo het dat 'n groot sosiale transformasie in Rusland nodig is nie.

Daar is 'n groter historiese perspektief. Baie historici stel voor dat die tsaristiese stelsel, ten minste 'n eeu voor die ineenstorting in die rewolusie van 1917, in 'n institusionele krisis was, dat die tsaristiese stelsel nie werkbare oplossings kon vind vir die probleme waarmee dit te kampe het nie. As dit homself sou moderniseer, dit wil sê as dit sy landbou en nywerheid sou ontwikkel dat dit sy groeiende bevolking kon onderhou en op gelyke voet met sy Europese en Asiatiese bure en internasionale mededingers kon meeding, sou dit nodig wees sy bestaande instellings. Dit was blykbaar onwillig of onwillig om dit te doen.

Daarin lê die tragedie van Emansipasie. Dit is 'n uitstekende voorbeeld van tsaristiese onbekwaamheid. Die bekendstelling daarvan hou die moontlikheid in dat Rusland kan voortbou op hierdie fundamenteel progressiewe maatreël en sy landbou -ekonomie so kan aanpas dat dit voorsiening maak vir sy groot bevolking, wat in die tweede helfte van die 19de eeu verdubbel het tot 125 miljoen. Maar die kans was verlore. So klein was die boer as landbouwerker teen 1900 dat slegs die helfte van sy karige inkomste uit die boerdery gekom het. Hy moes homself onderhou deur te arbei. Soveel vir Alexander II se bewering dat hy die taak om die toestand van die boere te verbeter beskou het as ''n heilige erfenis' waaraan hy eer gebonde was.

Probleme om te debatteer

In watter mate het nederlaag in die Krimoorlog Alexander II die ideale geleentheid gebied om groot hervormings in te stel?

Op watter maniere was die Russiese kleinboere beter daaraan toe as gevolg van Emansipasie, op watter maniere slegter daaraan toe?

Aanvaar u die siening dat die emansipasie van die diensknegte simptomaties was van die onwilligheid van die tsaristelsel om die broodnodige wortel- en takhervorming aan te neem?


Dienstigheid

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Dienstigheid, toestand in die Middeleeuse Europa waarin 'n huurderboer gebind was aan 'n oorerflike stuk grond en aan die testament van sy verhuurder. Die oorgrote meerderheid van die diensknegte in die Middeleeuse Europa het hul lewensbestaan ​​verkry deur 'n stuk grond wat deur 'n heer besit was, te bewerk. Dit was die belangrikste kenmerk wat diensknegte onderskei van slawe wat gekoop en verkoop is sonder verwysing na 'n stuk grond. Die slaaf het sy eie voedsel en klere uit sy eie produktiewe pogings voorsien. 'N Aansienlike deel van die graan wat die serf op sy erf gegroei het, moes aan sy heer gegee word. Die heer kon die dienskneg ook dwing om die gedeelte van die grond van die heer wat nie deur ander huurders besit is nie, te bewerk (genoem demesne grond). Die slaaf moes ook die graanmeule van sy heer gebruik en geen ander nie.

Die belangrikste bykomende kenmerk van diensbaarheid was die gebrek aan baie van die persoonlike vryhede wat vrymanne gehad het. Die belangrikste hiervan was die gebrek aan bewegingsvryheid van die dienskneg; hy kon nie sy erf of sy dorp permanent verlaat sonder die toestemming van sy heer nie. Die dienskneg kon ook nie trou, sy beroep verander of van sy eiendom beskik sonder die toestemming van sy heer nie. Hy was gebind aan sy aangewese stuk grond en kon saam met die grond na 'n nuwe heer oorgeplaas word. Diensknegte is dikwels hard behandel en het min regsgeding gehad teen die optrede van hul here. 'N Dienskneg kan slegs 'n bevryde mens word deur vrystelling, vrylating of ontsnapping.

Reeds in die 2de eeu is baie van die groot, privaat besittings in die Romeinse Ryk wat deur slawe bendes gewerk is, geleidelik in boerderye opgedeel. Hierdie kleinboere van die laat Romeinse Ryk, waarvan baie afstammelinge van slawe was, was afhanklik van groter grondeienaars en ander belangrike persone vir beskerming teen staatsbelastingversamelaars en later van barbaarse indringers en onderdrukkende bure. Sommige van hierdie koloni, soos die afhanklike kleinboere genoem is, het moontlik besittings wat deur 'n eienaar aan hulle toegestaan ​​is, oorgeneem, of hulle het hul eie grond aan hom oorgegee in ruil vir sodanige beskerming. Dit het in elk geval 'n gewoonte geword dat die afhanklike boer trou aan 'n eienaar sweer en sodoende aan die heer gebind word.

Die grootste probleem met die coloni was om te verhoed dat hulle die grond verlaat wat hulle as huurders wou bewerk. Die oplossing was om hulle wettiglik aan hul besittings te bind. Gevolglik het 'n wetlike kode wat deur die Romeinse keiser Konstantyn in 332 ingestel is, geëis dat arbeidsdienste deur die coloni aan die heer betaal moes word. Alhoewel die koloni wettig vry was, het die voorwaardes van trou hulle vereis om die ongerepte grond van hul heer sowel as hul erfgrond te bewerk. Dit het hulle nie net aan hul besittings gekoppel nie, maar het ook hul sosiale status in wese onderdanig gemaak, aangesien die afhandeling van arbeidsdienste van die verhuurder se agente vereis het om dissipline oor die koloni uit te oefen. Die bedreiging, of die uitoefening, van hierdie dissipline word erken as een van die duidelikste tekens van 'n man se persoonlike onderwerping.

Teen die 6de eeu het die servi, of diensknegte, soos die knegteboere genoem is, is as 'n minderwaardige element in die samelewing behandel. Dienaars het daarna 'n belangrike klas geword in die klein, gedesentraliseerde polities wat die grootste deel van Europa gekenmerk het vanaf die val van die Romeinse Ryk in die 5de eeu tot die aanvanklike heropbou van feodale monargieë, hertogdomme en provinsies in die 12de eeu.

Teen die 14de eeu was die ekonomiese toestande in Wes -Europa gunstig vir die vervanging van diensknegte deur 'n vryboer. Die toename in die mag van sentrale en streeksregerings het die uitvoering van kontrakte tussen boere-verhuurders toegelaat sonder dat die diensbaarheid van die boere nodig was, en die uiteindelike staking van arbeidsdienste op die terrein het die noodsaaklikheid van die direkte uitoefening van arbeidsdissipline op die boere verwyder. Die drastiese agteruitgang van die bevolking in Europa na 1350 as gevolg van die Swart Dood het baie bewerkbare grond onbewerk gelaat en het ook 'n akute arbeidstekort veroorsaak, beide ekonomies gunstige gebeure vir die boere. En laastens het die endemiese boerderyopstande in Wes -Europa gedurende die 14de en 15de eeu ook gunstiger termyn vir die boer gedwing. Alhoewel die nuwe boere nie noodwendig ekonomies beter daaraan toe was as hul diensbare voorouers nie, het hulle persoonlike vryhede vergroot en was hulle nie meer heeltemal onderhewig aan die wil van die here wie se grond hulle bewerk het nie.

Hierdie gunstige evolusie is nie deur die kleinboere van Oos -Europa gedeel nie. Dit lyk asof die boer se omstandighede in die 14de eeu nie erger was as dié van die weste nie, en op sommige maniere was dit beter omdat die kolonisering van boswêreld in Oos -Duitsland, Pole, Bohemen, Morawië en Hongarye tot die stigting gelei het van baie vryboergemeenskappe. Maar 'n kombinasie van politieke en ekonomiese omstandighede het hierdie ontwikkelinge omgekeer. Die hoofrede was dat die oorloë wat Oos -Europa in die 14de en 15de eeu verwoes het, die mag van die adel verhoog het ten koste van die sentrale regerings. In Oos -Duitsland, Pruise, Pole en Rusland het hierdie ontwikkeling saamgeval met 'n groter vraag na graan uit Wes -Europa. Om voordeel te trek uit hierdie vraag, het edeles en ander verhuurders die boerderybesit teruggeneem, hul eie verbouing uitgebrei en groot eise gestel aan arbeidsarbeiders. Die boerderystatus van Oos -Duitsland tot Muscovy het gevolglik skerp versleg. Eers aan die einde van die 18de eeu is die kleinboere van die Oostenryk-Hongaarse Ryk bevry van diensbaarheid, en sodoende hul vryheid van beweging en huwelik herstel en die reg om 'n beroep te leer volgens persoonlike keuse. Die diensknegte van Rusland het eers hul persoonlike vryheid en hul eie toewysings van grond gekry tot Alexander II se edik van emansipasie van 1861.

Regdeur die Chinese geskiedenis is landgebonde kleinboere as vrymanne beskou, maar was heeltemal afhanklik van die grondeienaar vir lewensonderhoud. In hierdie diensknegstelsel kon boere verhandel word, sonder die nodige regsproses gestraf word en met moeite hulde aan die heer gebring word. Alle diensknegte is egter bevry met die stigting van die Volksrepubliek China in 1949.

Die redakteurs van Encyclopaedia Britannica Hierdie artikel is onlangs hersien en bygewerk deur Amy McKenna, senior redakteur.


1.3: Burgerlike lewe

  • Christopher Brooks
  • Voltydse fakulteit (Geskiedenis) by Portland Community College

Ondanks die aanranding van die aanvanklike invalle, het die Franse oorheersing voordelige hervormings meegebring in die marionetstate wat deur Frankryk geskep is, almal produkte van die Franse Revolusie en rsquos -innovasies 'n dekade vroeër: enkele doeane -gebiede, verenigde stelsels van gewigte en maatreëls, geskrewe grondwette, gelykheid voor die wet, die afskaffing van argaïese edele voorregte, sekularisering van kerkeiendom, die afskaffing van diensbaarheid en godsdienstige verdraagsaamheid. Ten minste gedurende die beginjare van die Napoleontiese ryk het baie verowerde volke - duidelik die gewone mense - die Franse verowering as (ten minste gedeeltelik) as 'n bevryding ervaar.

Napoleon was nie net 'n briljante generaal nie, hy was ook 'n ernstige politikus met 'n skerp verstand oor hoe die regering hervorm moes word vir groter doeltreffendheid. Hy het die chroniese inflasieprobleem aangespreek deur belastinginvordering en openbare ouditering te verbeter, die Bank of France in 1800 te stig en silwer en goud te vervang vir die byna waardelose papiernote. Hy het 'n nuwe burgerlike kode van 1804 bekendgestel (soos gewoonlik, na homself vernoem as die kode Napoleon), wat die wettige egalitêre beginsels van 1789 behou het.

In die onderwys was sy opvallendste uitvinding die lyc & eacutee, 'n sekondêre skool vir die opleiding van 'n elite van leiers en administrateurs, met 'n sekulêre kurrikulum en beurse vir die seuns van offisiere en staatsamptenare en die mees begaafde leerlinge van gewone sekondêre skole. 'N Concordat (ooreenkoms) met die pous in 1801 herstel die posisie van die Katolieke Kerk in Frankryk, hoewel dit nie kerklike eiendom teruggee het nie, en ook nie die beginsel van verdraagsaamheid vir godsdienstige minderhede laat vaar het nie. Die belangrikste revolusionêre beginsel wat Napoleon opgelê het, was doeltreffendheid - hy wou 'n goed bestuurde, doeltreffende ryk hê omdat hy erken het dat doeltreffendheid na mag oorgedra word. Selfs sy eie steun vir godsdiensvryheid is uit daardie impuls gebore: hy het nie omgegee watter godsdiens sy onderdane bely nie, solank hulle ywerig ten bate van die staat werk.

Napoleon was egter geen vryheidsliefhebber nie. Hy het streng persuur van die pers ingestel en het min tyd vir demokrasie gehad. Hy het ook die toonaangewende politici in die revolusionêre periode agtervolg deur vroue uit die politieke gemeenskap uitdruklik uit te sluit - sy wetkode van 1804 maak van vroue die regsonderwerpe van hul vaders en dan hul mans en verklaar dat 'n man sy vrou beskerming verskuldig is en 'n vrou haar skuld man gehoorsaamheid. Met ander woorde, onder die Code Napoleon het vroue dieselfde regstatus as kinders gehad. Van al sy onderdane, mans sowel as vroue, verwag Napoleon dieselfde wat van vroue in die gesinslewe vereis word: gehoorsaamheid.


Vroeë lewe en opvoeding

Napoleon is gebore op Korsika kort na die sessie van die eiland deur Frankryk deur die Genoes. Hy was die vierde, en tweede oorlewende, kind van Carlo Buonaparte, 'n prokureur, en sy vrou, Letizia Ramolino. Sy vader se familie, uit die ou Toskaanse adel, het in die 16de eeu na Corsica geëmigreer.

Carlo Buonaparte het getroud met die pragtige en sterk wil Letizia toe sy net 14 was en uiteindelik agt kinders gehad het om in baie moeilike tye groot te word. Die Franse besetting van hul geboorteland is verset deur 'n aantal Korsikane onder leiding van Pasquale Paoli. Carlo Buonaparte het by die party van Paoli aangesluit, maar toe Paoli moes vlug, het Buonaparte met die Franse ooreengekom. Deur die beskerming van die goewerneur van Corsica te wen, word hy aangestel as assessor vir die geregtelike distrik Ajaccio in 1771. In 1778 verkry hy die toelating van sy twee oudste seuns, Joseph en Napoleon, tot die Collège d'Autun.

Napoleon, 'n Korsikaan van geboorte, oorerwing en kinderverenigings, het 'n geruime tyd na sy aankoms in die vasteland van Frankryk voortgegaan om homself as 'n buitelander te beskou, maar vanaf negejarige ouderdom word hy in Frankryk opgevoed soos ander Fransmanne. Alhoewel die neiging om 'n reïnkarnasie van 'n Italiaanse condottiere uit die 14de eeu in Napoleon te sien, 'n oorbeklemtoning is van een aspek van sy karakter, het hy in werklikheid nie die tradisies of die vooroordele van sy nuwe land gedeel nie: 'n Korsikaan in temperament, hy was in die eerste plek, deur sy opvoeding en sy lees, 'n man uit die 18de eeu.

Napoleon is opgelei by drie skole: kortliks by Autun, vyf jaar lank aan die militêre kollege van Brienne en laastens vir een jaar aan die militêre akademie in Parys. Dit was gedurende Napoleon se jaar in Parys dat sy pa in Februarie 1785 aan 'n maagkanker gesterf het, wat sy gesin in 'n benarde toestand gelaat het. Napoleon, hoewel hy nie die oudste seun was nie, het die pos van hoof van die gesin aangeneem voordat hy 16 was. In September studeer hy aan die militêre akademie, 42ste in 'n klas van 58.

Hy word tweede luitenant van artillerie in die regiment La Fère, 'n soort opleidingskool vir jong artilleriebeamptes. Napoleon, wat in Valence geplaas is, het sy opleiding voortgesit en baie gelees, veral strategieë en taktiek. Hy het ook geskryf Lettres sur la Corse ("Letters on Corsica"), waarin hy sy gevoel vir sy geboorteland onthul. Hy het teruggekeer na Corsica in September 1786 en het eers weer in Junie 1788 by sy regiment aangesluit. Teen daardie tyd het die oproerigheid wat sou uitloop op die Franse Rewolusie reeds begin. Napoleon, 'n leser van Voltaire en van Rousseau, was van mening dat 'n politieke verandering noodsaaklik was, maar as loopbaanbeampte het hy blykbaar geen behoefte aan radikale sosiale hervormings gesien nie.


Die afskaffing van feodalisme

Natuurlik het die geweld van die opstand van die boere die afgevaardigdes van die Nasionale Vergadering vir sommige mense bekommerd gemaak, of dit op die platteland verswelg is deur anargie wat alle eiendom bedreig. Maar die meerderheid was nie bereid om hulle teen die opstandige kleinboere te bekeer nie. In plaas daarvan om die geweld aan die kaak te stel, het hulle probeer om die opinie van die boere te versag. Liberale adellikes en geestelikes het die sitting van 4 Augustus begin deur afstand te doen van hul ou feodale voorregte. Binne enkele ure is die Vergadering gedwing om 'die afskaffing van feodalisme' sowel as die kerktiende, ampstermyn, streeksvoorreg en fiskale voorreg te besluit. 'N Paar dae later het die Vergadering sekerlik die dekreet van 4 Augustus verduidelik om te verseker dat' wettige 'seigneuriële eiendomsreg gehandhaaf word. Terwyl persoonlike feodale serwitute soos jagregte, seigneuriale geregtigheid en arbeidsdienste regstreeks onderdruk is, sou die meeste seigneuriese vergoedings slegs afgeskaf moes word as die kleinboere vergoeding betaal aan hul here, vasgestel op 20 tot 25 keer die jaarlikse waarde van die verpligting. Die oorgrote meerderheid van die boere het hierdie vereiste deur passiewe weerstand verwerp, totdat daar in 1792–93 druk opgebou is vir die volledige afskaffing van alle seegneuriële vergoedings sonder vergoeding.

Die afskaffing van feodalisme was deurslaggewend vir die ontwikkeling van 'n moderne, kontraktuele idee van eiendom en vir die ontwikkeling van 'n onbelemmerde mark vir grond. Maar dit het nie direk die eienaarskap van grond of die vlak van gewone huurgeld en huurkontrakte beïnvloed nie. Seigneurs het sekere soorte tradisionele inkomste verloor, maar hulle het grondeienaars en eienaars gebly. Terwyl alle boere waardigheid en status verwerf het, het slegs die eienaars van die grondbesit ekonomies aansienlik vorentoe gekom. Huurboere het gevind dat wat hulle eens vir die tiende betaal het, by hul huurgeld gevoeg is. En die Vergadering het feitlik niks gedoen om beter huurkontrakte vir huurders en aandeelhouers te verseker nie, laat staan ​​die verkryging van die grond wat hulle bewerk het.


Die Haïtiaanse rewolusie en die gat in die Franse hoërskoolgeskiedenis

Volgens die geleerde Sudhir Hazareesingh, was Toussaint Louverture 'die eerste swart superheld van die moderne tyd'. Louverture is gebore as slaaf op 'n suikerplantasie op Saint-Domingue, 'n Franse kolonie op die eiland Hispaniola, iewers in die vroeë sewentien-veertigerjare. Hy is op volwassenheid geëmansipeer en op ongeveer vyftig het hy die belangrikste slaweopstand in die geskiedenis gelei, wat Frankryk effektief gedwing het om slawerny af te skaf, in 1794. Vervolgens verenig hy die swart en gemengde bevolkings van die eiland onder sy militêre bevel, en bestuur drie opeenvolgende Franse commissioners defeated the British overpowered the Spanish and, in 1801—despite having been wounded seventeen times in battle and having lost most of his front teeth to a cannonball explosion—authored a new abolitionist constitution for Saint-Domingue, asserting that “here, all men are born, live, and die free and French.” Napoleon Bonaparte first sent twenty thousand men to overthrow him, reinstating slavery in the French colonies, in 1802. Louverture instructed Jean-Jacques Dessalines to torch the capital city, “so that those who come to re-enslave us always have before their eyes the image of hell they deserve.” Ultimately taken captive, Louverture was deported to France and died within months in a prison in the Jura Mountains. In 1803, Bonaparte’s army was defeated, having lost more soldiers (his brother-in-law among them) on Saint-Domingue than he would, twelve years later, at Waterloo. The next year, the revolutionaries established a new, independent, and free nation: Haiti, the world’s first Black republic.

For the moment, a typical French student completes her high-school education without hearing much about any of this. Despite Marcus Garvey’s assertion that Louverture’s “brilliancy as a soldier and statesman outshone that of a Cromwell, Napoleon, and Washington,” despite Aimé Césaire’s belief that Haiti was the place where “negritude stood up for the first time and proclaimed its faith in its humanity,” despite the fact that Louverture—hailed as “the Black Spartacus,” hero of Frederick Douglass—embodied the ideals of the French Revolution and, then, the Haitian Revolution, which inspired the modern anti-colonial movement all over the world, France has not seen him and his fight as indispensable elements of its national narrative. “It’s thought of as a minor story, not la grande histoire,” Elisabeth Landi, a history professor in Martinique, said. In 2009, an inscription honoring Louverture was engraved in a wall at the Pantheon. The story of his country’s revolution is taught in high schools in some of France’s overseas territories. In metropolitan vocational high schools, whose students are more likely to come from working-class and immigrant families, the recently updated curriculum acknowledges the Haitian Revolution as a “singular extension” of the American and French revolutions. But it is not mentioned in the general lycée curriculum. A future pipe fitter in Paris will thus know that enslaved Black people in a French colony sought and secured their own freedom, but an aspiring politician, having done all her homework at lycée, may understand emancipation simply as a right granted in 1848, by decree of the Second Republic.

Now the Fondation pour la Mémoire de l’Esclavage (Foundation for the Memory of Slavery), an organization whose creation was announced in 2016, under the Presidency of François Hollande, is lobbying French authorities to address these absences. “When it comes to slavery, we don’t teach the same history to all the children of France,” the foundation wrote in a report published this September. The report was issued in advance of the twentieth anniversary of the Taubira law, which in 2001 designated the slave trade and slavery as crimes against humanity, and mandated that school curricula accord them “the substantial place that they merit.” France’s education system is highly centralized, and the years following the passage of the law saw significant progress in updating historiography, training teachers, and revising textbooks. (The reforms were not without backlash: in 2005, the French legislature passed a law requiring schools to emphasize the “positive role” of colonialism, a stipulation that was subsequently rescinded.) In 2006, the center-right President Jacques Chirac instituted an annual day of commemoration for slavery, and an arm of the education ministry issued a nonbinding suggestion that Haitian independence be taught in lycée. In a groundbreaking speech, Chirac spoke explicitly of Haiti, invoking Louverture alongside such figures of resistance as Solitude, Cimendef, and Dimitile. “Too few French people know these names,” he said. “However, they are part of the history of France.”

But, according to the foundation’s note, the momentum gained with the passing of the Taubira law “has gradually faded.” Jean-Marc Ayrault, a former Prime Minister of France who now serves as the organization’s president, told me that he wondered whether the Taubira law, unanimous in 2001, would pass without opposition today, given the increasing polarization in French society around questions of race and identity. “When we discuss the history of slavery, we get the impression that we should almost apologize for talking about it,” he said. “That’s a climate that worries me.”

The Ministry of Education updated the general high-school history program last year. An early draft of the curriculum addressed slavery in the Portugese islands and Brazil, and in the Americas, but not in the French plantation economy. Ayrault and Christiane Taubira—a former justice minister, who sponsored the 2001 law and serves as a patron of the Foundation for the Memory of Slavery—successfully petitioned for its inclusion. But the Haitian Revolution, specifically, remains absent from the new curriculum. Philippe Raynaud, the vice-president of the Conseil Supérieur des Programmes, the ministry body that advises on school curricula, pointed out that eighth graders study slavery, and that teachers are free to cover Haiti as part of a unit on the French Revolution, “even if it does not occupy the same place in all high school programs.” Ayrault and others consider this insufficient. “This history needs to be heard,” Marc Lienafa, who teaches history and geography at a vocational high school near Caen, said. This year, his students created a comic book about slavery in Saint-Domingue, which was chosen as a finalist in an annual national competition co-sponsored by the Ministry of Education. Lienafa continued, “I think that to put a veil on this colonial history is to nourish resentments and to encourage people to withdraw into identity.”

The Haitian anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot argued that the Haitian Revolution has been “silenced” in part because it was “unthinkable even as it happened”: white hegemony so pervaded the world views of white Europeans and Americans, as well as of observers in Saint-Domingue, that they were unable to conceptualize the military triumph and political birth of a Black nation. This incredulity has, in some ways, never really faded. French historians, Alyssa Goldstein Sepinwall has written, have tended to focus on the colonial traumas of the twentieth century rather than on French slavery, which took place outside its European borders, “making slavery seem less central to France’s past.” This is compounded by the fact that French universalism has traditionally precluded discussions of race, both as a specious scientific category and on the ground that “citizen” is one’s primary identity.

Yet, even as French historiography has obscured the Haitian Revolution, its consequences endure today. In 1825, France imposed a hundred-and-fifty-million-franc indemnity on Haiti, under threat of war, forcing the nation to borrow money from a French bank at extortionate rates in order to compensate former slaveholders. Even though the debt was later reduced to ninety million francs, Haiti didn’t finish paying it off until 1947, and, according to Marlene Daut, an expert on Haiti at the University of Virginia, its effects are still being felt. Still, many French people are unaware of the ties between the two nations. Daut, who taught English at the Lycée Camille Saint-Saëns, in Rouen, in 2002, recalled, “On one occasion, a student asked me where my family was from, and, when I said ‘Haiti,’ he started doing the hula because he thought I said ‘Tahiti.’ ”

During the 2017 Presidential race, Emmanuel Macron spoke of the need to face history honestly, calling colonialism a “crime against humanity,” but, recently—with another election coming in 2022 and the far right as one of his strongest competitors—he has struck a less progressive tone. Jean-Michel Blanquer, the Minister of Education, does not appear to be particularly interested in examining the education system’s treatment of colonization. Asked recently on television about the Algerian War, he replied, “If we do more and more repentance, we’ll have less and less integration,” adding that the French were better off “not looking to excuse ourselves every five minutes for everything.” On October 16th, an Islamist terrorist beheaded Samuel Paty, a middle-school history and geography teacher who had shown caricatures of Mohammed to his students as part of a classroom discussion about free expression. In an interview following the attack, Blanquer linked the fragmentation of French society to “an intellectual matrix coming from American universities and intersectional theses, which want to essentialize communities and identities”—a statement that the far right accused him of plagiarizing from its literature. (Blanquer declined to comment through a spokesperson.)

As Hazareesingh writes in “Black Spartacus: The Epic Life of Toussaint Louverture,” Louverture wasn’t a perfect republican—even he, at one point, owned at least one slave, and he proclaimed himself governor for life. But he was one of the most exemplary ones France has had. In 1800, Charles Vincent, who was sent by Bonaparte as an emissary to Saint-Domingue, wrote, “There is no man more attached to the ideal of French republicanism.” Louverture and the Haitian revolutionaries were maybe the ultimate Lumières, taking the ideals of liberté, égalité, en fraternité further than their European contemporaries were willing or able to, and envisioning, with racial equality, Hazareesingh writes, “a much bolder vision of brotherhood than that of the French jacobins.” Acknowledging their signal role in the history of France, Ayrault said, is a matter of national cohesion as much as of historical justice: “When we evade these questions, when we hide them, when we forget them, there’s a risk that they resurge,” he said. “If we try to cover up this history, it comes back and it often comes back in a more violent manner.”


Class 10 History ch-1 Rise of Nationalism in Europe

During the nineteenth century, nationalism emerged as a force which brought about sweeping changes in the political and mental world of Europe and resulted in the emergence of the nation-state.

Frederic Sorrieu

  1. He was a French artist famous for prints prepared in 1848 that visualized the dream of a world consisting of Democratic and Social He prepared a series of four print.
  2. In the first print peoples of Europe and America are shown marching and paying homage to the statue of liberty.
  3. The statue of liberty is personified as a female figure who bears the torch of enlightenment in one hand and the character of rights of man in the other hand.
  4. In utopian views of sorrieu peoples of the world are differentiated through these flags and national costume.

And finally, the remains of the absolutist institutions can be seen broken and shattered on the Earth indicating the end of conservatism and absolutism.

Nation-State

A state that establishes itself as a separate political and geographical entity and functions as a complete and sovereign territorial unit. This concept emerged in 19th century Europe as a result of the growth of nationalism.

Modern State

A state in which sovereignty is exercised by a centralized power over a specific territory and population.

Absolutist Regering

A system of government wherein limitless powers is vested in a single person or body. It is a monarchical form of government in which the ruler is the absolute authority and is not answerable to anybody.

Nationalism

A feeling of oneness with the society or the state, love and devotion for the motherland and belief in the political identity of one’s country are the basic attributes of nationalism.

The French Revolution and the idea of the Nation

French Revolution (1789)

It marks the beginning of nationalism.

Salient features of the French Revolution were:

  • France was under the absolute monarchy in 1789.
  • The Revolution transferred sovereignty from the monarch to the French people.

The French revolutionaries introduced various measures to create a sense of collective identity amongst the French people

  1. Ideas of La patrie (the fatherhood) and Le citoyen (the citizen) adopted.
  2. New French Flag, the tricolour, adopted replacing the royal standard.
  3. Estates General elected by citizens and renamed the National Assembly.
  4. A centralized political system established.
  5. Internal custom dues abolished.
  6. Uniform weights and measures adopted.
  7. French became the language of the nation.
  8. French armies moved into Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy in the 1790s with a promise of liberating the people from their despotic rulers.

Napoleon (1769-1821)

  • Ruled France from 1799 aan 1815.
  • Assumed absolute powers in 1799. Napoleon had destroyed democracy in France, but in the administrative field, he had incorporated revolutionary principles.

Civil Code/Napoleonic Kode (1804)

  1. Established equality before the law.
  2. Abolished all privileges based on birth.
  3. Granted the right to property to French citizens.
  4. Simplified administrative divisions.
  5. Abolished feudal system and freed peasants from serfdom.
  6. Removed restrictions on guilds in towns.
  7. Improved transport and communications.

Militarily, Napoleon proved to be an oppressor for the people of the conquered territories. Taxation and censorship were imposed and military services were made mandatory.

Europa in the mid-eighteenth Century

  • No nation states because Europeans never saw themselves as sharing a common identity or E.g., The Habsburg Empire of Austria–Hungary comprised French, Italian and German-speaking people.
  • Europe was broadly divided into two classes during this period namely:

Aristocracy

  1. The landowning
  2. Numerically small, but dominated Europe, both socially and politically.
  3. Spoke French which was considered the language of the high society.
  4. Families were connected through marriages.

Peasantry

  1. Tenants and small landowners who worked as Serfs.
  2. Cultivated the lands of the aristocratic lords.
  • The growth of trade and industrial production facilitated the growth of towns and rise of a commercial class of Consequently, the new conscious, educated, liberal middle class emerged and popularized nationalism and stood for the abolition of the aristocracy.

What did liberal nationalism stand for?

  • For the new middle classes politically liberalism stood for:
  1. Individual freedom
  2. Equality before law
  3. Politically, Government by consent
  4. End of autocracy and clerical privileges
  5. A constitution and representative government through parliament.

In die economics sphere liberalism stood for:

  1. Freedom of markets
  2. Abolition of state-imposed restrictions on the movement of goods and capital.
  3. Removal of trade restrictions.
  4. inviolability of private property.
    • Liberalism became the main concern in Europe after the French Revolution because:
      1. Universal Adult Suffrage was not granted to the people by the Napoleonic Code. Men without property and women were denied the right to vote.
      2. Women were made subject to the authority of men.
      • Markets were not free as the 39 confederacies of France had their own laws which posed problems for the free movement of goods.
      1. There were no standard weights and measures and no fixed rates of customs duties, which greatly affected the trade. Voorbeeld: Elle, the measure of cloth, stood for different length in each region.

      A customs union formed in 1834 at the initiative of Prussia. It abolished tariff barriers and reduced the number of currencies to two from over thirty.

      A new conservatism after 1815

      Conservatism

      Stands for the preservation of the traditional institutions of state and society such as the monarchy, the church, social hierarchies and family along with the modern changes introduced by Napoleon. Conservatism as a political ideology arose after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 at the Battle of Waterloo. The conservative regimes

      • Were autocratic
      • Were intolerant to criticism and dissent
      • Adopted the censorship of press for curbing the liberal ideals
      • Discouraged any questions that challenged their legitimacy

      Kongres of Vienna (1815)

      In 1815, representatives of the European powers – Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria, who had collectively defeated Napoleon, met at Vienna for drawing a new settlement for Europe and restoring the monarchies that were overthrown by Napoleon for creation of a new conservative order. The Congress was hosted by the Austrian Chancellor Duke Metternich.

      The salient features of the treaty were as follows:

      1. The Bourbon dynasty restored to power in France.
      2. France was disposed of its conquered of its territories.
      3. The Kingdom of Netherlands, which included Belgium, was set up in the North and Genoa was set up in the South for preventing French expansion in future.
      4. Prussia was given new territories, including a portion of Saxony.
      5. Austria got control over Northern Italy.
      6. Russia got Poland.
      7. Napoleon’s Confederation of 39 states was not changed.

      The Revolutionaries

      Upholders of the idea of liberalism and against the conservative regimes of the 19thcentury. Many secret societies were formed whose main aims were:

      1. Training the revolutionaries and spreading their ideas throughout Europe.
      2. Opposing monarchical governments established after the Vienna Congress of 1815.
      3. Fighting for liberty and freedom from autocratic rule.
      4. Emphasizing the idea of creation of nation states.

      Giuseppe Mazzini

      • Italian revolutionary’ born in 1807.
      1. Became a member of the secret society of the Carbonari.
      2. 1831: Sent into exile for attempting an upsurge in Liguria.
      3. Founder of Young Italyat Marseilles and Young Europeat Berne, the two secret societies.
      4. Believed in the unification of Italy into a republic.
      5. Enemy of the monarchical form of government and conservative regimes.
      6. Metternich described him as “The most dangerous enemy of our social order”.

      The Age of Revolutions (1830-1848)

      1. The consolidation of power by the conservative regime made liberalism and nationalism associated with the revolution in many regions of Europe.
      2. Italian and German states, the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Ireland and Poland experienced such revolutions.
      3. The revolutionaries comprised professors, school teachers, clerks and members of the commercial middle class.

      July Revolution, France (1830)

      1. The Bourbon Kings, who had been restored power after the Vienna Congress of 1815 was overthrown by liberal revolutionaries.
      2. Louis Philippe was installed as a constitutional monarch.
      3. Belgium broke away from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      Greek Revolution (1830)

      1. Greek War of independence.
      2. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire since the 15th century.
      3. Growth of nationalism in Europe started Greek’s struggle for independence from the Ottoman rule in 1821.
      4. Support from West European countries.
      5. Poets and artists, who were inspired by the ancient Greek culture and literature, also supported the E.g., Lord Byron, the famous English Poet organized funds.
      6. 1832: Die Treaty of Constantinoplerecognized Greece as an independent

      The Romantic imagination and national feeling

      Romanticism (1830s)

      A cultural movement that rejected science and reason and introduced heart and emotions. The concern of the romantics was to create a sense of shared collective heritage and a common cultural past for arousing nationalism.

      • German philosopher and romanticist Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) believed that true German culture can be discovered only among common people (das volk) through their practice of flock traditions.
      • Emphasized on vernacular languages and folklore for conveying their ideas to illiterate Example: Poland Karol Kurpinski celebrated the national struggle through his opera and music.

      Nationalistic Feeling (1830s)

      The sense of recognizing the society and nation as “we” and the sharing of many traits by its members. Culture with art and poetry, stories and music played a major role in the shaping and expression of nationalistic feelings and nation.


      Notas

      (1) Let us recall three definitions : the original history is the immediate history, written by the witnesses or the actors the reflexive history refers to the historical science the philosophical history defines the philosophy of history.
      (2) This point of view can be connected to Goethe's : "That is why Napoleon was one of the most productive man who ever lived." Conversations de Goethe avec Eckermann, p.551 (Gallimard).
      (3) Kojève considers, in his Introduction à la lecture de Hegel that Napoleon is to Hegel, at the end of the chapter 6 of the Phenomenology, preceding the exposition of the absolute knowledge, " the God who appears." Kojève is wrong because the expression refers to the Christ and because Napoleon is a hero, that is a demigod.
      (4) Whether or not Chateaubriand held the Comments in hands, as he wrote in Mémoires d'Outre Tombe, he places anyway Napoleon at the same level as Caesar.
      (5) Chateaubriand calls Napoleon "the man of the battles."
      (6) On the contrary, one of the reasons for the opposition of B. Constant to Napoleon was that he hated the antique city and philosophy.
      (7) Hegel, director if the Nurnberg Gymnasium from 1808 to 1816 admires the regulation of the french high schools. See the excellent edition by B. Bourgeois of the pedagogic texts of Hegel (Vrin ed.).
      (8) Was this constitution applied ? Rambaud doubts it.
      (9) Napoleon is a reader of Corneille : he would have made him Prince.
      (10) After Napoleon's death, Hegel reads Le Memorial, Gourgaud and Montholon. From Berlin, Hegel writes to Van Ghert : "In Brussels, according to what I am learning, there is a reprint of the Mémoires sur Napoléon, from Gourgaud and Montholon could you ask the bookkeeper to send me an issue?" (Correspondance, T.3, p.14). Let us recall that the Napoleonic literature is then submitted to the Prussian censorship.
      (11) The monarch is the individual who makes the decision : he signs. This Hegelian idea is illustrated by the session of the Council of State, February 19, 1811. (See Le Souvenir Napoléonien, ndeg.397, p.26).
      (12) May, 21st 1813, in a letter addressed to Niethammer, Hegel laughs at the Bachkirs, the Cossacks and " other excellent liberators." (Correspondance, T.2, p.12).
      (13) Let us recall two judgments, the first one from Chateaubriand, the second from Goethe : " Isn't everything over with Napoleon?" (Mémoires d'Outre Tombe, 25th Book), "his life was the march of a demigod, from battle to battle and from victory to victory One could say about him that he was in a perpetual enlightenment : that is also why his destiny had such a fame that the world had never seen before him, and will maybe never see after him." (Conversations de Goethe avec Eckermann, p.550).


      THE HOPE OF TILSIT: NAPOLEON AND THE MIRAGE OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF WARSAW

      Despite Polish historians’ attempts to describe Napoleon’s actions towards Poland as that of a liberator, Napoleon, in his correspondence and notes of the first half of 1807, resolutely underlined his merely political interest in the country. Aan 23 February, he wrote to Duroc that: “The main service the Poles can do for me is to contain the Cossacks”. And again on 18 May, he wrote that Poland was simply a pawn in future peace negotiations. The Emperor, did not however forget what “individuals of the Polish army” had done for him, and in a decree on 4 Junie, specified that “twenty million francs should be set aside” as recompense for them.

      25 June, 1807: Meeting at Tilsit between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I. The future of Poland figured highly during their discussions. As a result of these discussions, on 7 and 9 July, the French Empire, the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia signed the Treaty of Tilsit. France and Russia formed an alliance and divided the Prussian lands between them. Napoleon’s regime was recognised and Russia joined him in his fight against Britain, by accepting the Continental Blockade.

      A direct consequence of this treaty for Poland was the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw op 22 July, 1807. It measured 104,000 km² and was formed with the land which Prussia had acquired during the second and third partitions of Poland in 1793 and 1795, with the exception of Danzig, with a population of 2.6 million people. It was ruled over by King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, grandson of Augustus II who had been king of Poland and Duke of Lithuania from 1733-1763. However, Frederick Augustus had very little power and was rarely in the Duchy, so the real power remained in French hands, namely Marshal Louis Nicholas Davout, who was Governor-General of the Duchy. The Polish nobility were keen for their old Constitution of 3 May, 1791 to be applied, but Napoleon installed his own Constitution instead, largely based on the French model, including a Council of State. This Constitution included liberal ideas, previously unseen in Poland, such as divorce and civil marriage, the abolition of serfdom and equality between all men before the law. The Code Napoléon was also introduced. The Continental Blockade was implemented in the Duchy, as it had been in all the other vassal states of France. The Duchy of Warsaw was mainly a military base, which served as a barrier between the French empire and Russian interests in Eastern Europe. Its army, under the command of Prince Joseph Poniatowski, was also under French power.

      9 March, 1808: Frederick Augustus I of Saxony began recruiting more soldiers for the army of the duchy. Soldiers had to be between twenty-one and twenty-eight years old. Teachers, clergy and Jews were dispensed this military service.

      19 April, 1809: Whilst the French troops (including a strong Polish contingent) were away fighting in Spain, Austria tried to take advantage by attacking Bavaria and the Duchy of Warsaw (which was consequently short of armed forces). After the first Battle of Raszyn, Austrian troops successfully invaded the Duchy of Warsaw, which Josef Poniatowski and his men were forced to abandon. Following this humiliating defeat, Poniatowski retreated to Galicia and mounted an insurrection, forcing the Austrians to evacuate Warsaw. Aan 14 October, after Napoleon’s victory at Wagram, Austria and France signed the Treaty of Schönbrunn, ending the campaign of Austria. Among other sanctions, Austria lost part of its territory, including Krakow and Lublin, to the Duchy of Warsaw. Poniatowski’s role in events was recognised by Napoleon, who made him Grand-officier of the Légion d’honneur.

      January, 1810: Diplomatic relations between France and Russia were becoming tense. Russia, through its ambassador Prince Alexis Kurakin and its chancellor Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev, was keen for the French Emperor to formally declare that he had no intention of re-establishing the kingdom of Poland, but the Emperor refused. Armand de Caulaincourt (French ambassador to Russia) and Rumyantsev agreed on a draft convention that banned the restoration of the independent Polish state. Napoleon however rejected it. In a letter dated 24 April, 1810, Napoleon argued that any declaration against an independent Polish state had to be met with a Russian declaration against the restoration of the Kingdom of Sardinia. By July 1810, Napoleon was refusing point blank to make any sort of declaration: in his meeting with Prince Alexis Kurakin, as reported in volume two of Vandal’s Napoléon et Alexandre (pp.417-424), he declared that “French blood will not be spilt fighting for Poland, but nor will it be spilt fighting against this unhappy nation. It would be utterly demeaning to my person to make that commitment or any such similar one.”

      Mid-1810: This clash over Poland led to Russian attempts to re-negotiate the Tilsit agreement. However, Kurakin’s lack of authorisation to discuss the articles of any potential alliance allowed Napoleon to dismiss any further discussion on the matter.

      End of 1810: a large number of vessels from a convoy carrying British goods and proceeding through the Baltic successfully landed in Russian ports as neutral ships or were simply left to continue their journey. Napoleon realised that Alexander was no longer respecting the Continental Blockade agreed at Tilsit, and, with more and more vessels landing in Russia, on 13 December, 1810, a sénatus-consulte was announced which formally incorporated the Hanseatic cities of Lübeck, Bremen and Hamburg into the French empire. Despite French military presence in the ports for more than four years, fraud and counterfeit were still widespread and the annexation was intended to strengthen the blockade along the Baltic.

      31 December, 1810: the Russian tsar announced a ukase (proclamation) decreeing that goods (other than those of British provenance) could once again enter Russia via its ports, whilst imports entering the empire over land (the majority of which was of French origin) would be hit with heavy duties.

      January, 1811, Alexander I began a correspondence with Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, the celebrated Polish diplomat, close personal friend to the tsar and former Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Russian court. The Russian tsar began exploring ways to begin an offensive against the French, one of which was to try and use Czartoryski’s patriotism and weight among his Polish countrymen to convince the Poles that an alliance with the Russians would bring about the reconstitution of a Polish Kingdom. Uncertainty among Polish leaders regarding Russia’s motives was to prove a stumbling block, however, and it did not take long for the French authorities to learn of Alexander’s plans. By the spring of 1811, the project had been shelved.

      30 December, 1811: War between France and Russia became more and more imminent as Russia began to look towards Turkey and the Duchy of Warsaw. Napoleon reorganised his army, integrating the Polish troops into his own and taking on their costs. The forces from the Duchy of Warsaw were still led by Prince Josef Poniatowski. A few months later, the troops were ready to attack, and Napoleon’s coalition army began to advance towards Russia in Junie 1812.

      June, 1812: Alexander I had three Russian armies positioned to guard the western frontier. He was the overall commander of these armies, and was installed in Barclay de Tolly’s headquarters near Vilna. Aan 24 June, the Grande Armée crossed the Russian border and the Russian armies were ordered to withdraw. The French (and Polish) forces followed them, until they reached Moscow on 15 September, 1812, where they stayed for a month.

      28 June, 1812: the Polish Parliament was given permission to vote a motion which aimed to restore the kingdom of Poland. On this date, the General Confederation of the Kingdom of Poland was formally established, and Prince Czartoryski was named Marshal of General Council of the Confederation. The government was similar to that of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The confederation did not last a year as Russian occupation of 30 April, 1813 put an end to it.

      December 1812: After Napoleon’s brief occupation of Moscow, the remnants of the Grande Armée re-entered the Duchy of Warsaw. The Polish troops had suffered colossal losses of the 35,000 men Poniatowski left with, only a few hundred returned. Napoleon rushed back to Paris in order to form a new army. In Januarie 1813, the Russian army entered the Duchy of Warsaw, chasing the remnants of the Grande Armée and successively occupying the territories of Lithuania and of the Duchy. Aan 5 February, the Polish government left the capital. A month later, the Tsar established a Supreme Council, mostly made up of Russian generals, to guarantee Russian control. From this time, the Duchy of Warsaw existed in name only as it was under full Russian domination. The fate of the Duchy remained uncertain as other powers such as Prussia and Austria were keen to regain Polish territories.

      After the disastrous Russian campaign, Napoleon began to be threatened from all sides. The Russian army continued to press on towards the west. Aan 17 March, 1813, Prussia declared war on France, in June Napoleon lost Spain to the Duke of Wellington and on 12 August, Austria declared war on France. Poniatowski had gathered together the surviving Polish soldiers after the retreat from Russia, and he now followed Napoleon to Leipzig, only to drown in the river Elster during the battle of Leipzig (16-19 October, 1813).

      30-31 March 1814: Fall of Paris. Van 4 – 11 April, Napoleon abdicated as Russian troops camped on the Champs Elysées.

      18 September, 1814 – 9 June, 1815: The Congress of Vienna, held to discuss the re-organisation of Europe, divided the duchy of Warsaw between Prussia, Austria and Russia. Only Krakow remained autonomous. Russia created the Kingdom of Poland, which was allowed its own Constitution. However, this constitution was frequently violated by the Russian powers. This was to be the fourth and final partition of Poland. Poland would not find independence for another hundred years.


      Kyk die video: Go Rogue with Napoleon Grills NEW Rogue XT Lineup