You and your spouse are the king and Queen of France. The year is 1789. Oh, you awake to another glorious day in the luxurious Palace of Versailles and are attended to by a room of nosy nobles vying for your favor. Courtiers dress you in a lavish white silk robe and the finest furs. On your royal head sits the royal crown, adorned with gems and jewels. Breakfast is a feast prepared by 300 servants first oysters with champagne, a creamy chicken soup and you can smell your favorite.
The savory aroma of roasted pheasant with truffle oil drizzled on golden souffles. You peruse your private library that holds some of the most rare and important texts in Western civilization. Then you stroll the intricate mazes in your gardens, lined with ornate fountains and exotic species from the New World. Afterwards, you ride horseback through your royal forests, ancient groves of beech and chestnut, majestic landscapes that stretch for miles.
Just be sure to make it back in time for council with oil ministers and dignitaries who keep you abreast of the goings on of your vast kingdom, from the mainland to your colonies overseas. You, of course, were born to run hand-picked by God along with the other members of the nobility. You're not going to get some commoner to run society after all. And this system of absolute rule of one over the many has lasted for thousands of years. But this is all about to change.
In a few weeks time, the countryside will descend into anarchy. Peasants will revolt. Your castles will be stormed. And finally your royal head will be removed from your royal body. The monarchy will come to an end soon. The people will rule. Welcome to human nature, Odyssey, a podcast exploring the past that shaped our present and the ideas that can shape our future. I'm Alex Smith. Okay, so I think a lot of us are looking around at our country right now. Whichever one that might be.
Or taking a good look at our global civilization and thinking, you know, I'm not so sure about this direction we're headed in. I think that's most of us, right? I mean, how many people are happy with the way society is headed? We all may have different opinions on what's wrong and what directions could be better, but there seems to be a general consensus. Maybe the one thing we all agree on. That things are not right. So then the question is, well, what do we do about it?
How do we change our society? How do we change our social structures? The way our society is organized? That's politics, right? That's what politics is trying to shape, how society is run. Now, back when there was a king, back in the days of Louis the 16th. Politics was not for everyday people. Oh, well, what are you peasants talking about? Shut up, shut up! The king's going to do the king's thing. Don't worry about it. That's how it's always been. And that's how it's always going to be.
But then there was a little something called the French Revolution. And the French monarchy was replaced by a French republic. And over 200 years later, the idea that the people have the right to determine their government has spread across the globe.
In 2020, four, more countries than ever before in world history held national elections India, Pakistan, South Korea, South Africa, Ghana, Mozambique, Belgium, Portugal, Uruguay, Mexico, the United Kingdom, the United States and 52 others held national elections. Different issues dominated each country's headlines, like minority Muslim rights in India. Power outages in South Africa or government corruption in Mexico.
But the political parties promising ways to protect, stop or fix them are more or less mapped on to what we call. But the, the political spectrum, you know, the political spectrum got a left wing and right wing. In Mexico's election, the left wing won. In South Africa. The center was reelected in India. The right wing is getting another shot at it. And you probably have your own opinions about the left wing and right wing. Who doesn't?
The notion of a political spectrum is so ingrained that it impacts not just how we talk about politics, but how we identify as people. I am a liberal. Oh, I am a conservative. But these are just metaphors. This is a map we use to navigate ideas. It's not a timeless biological reality. Yet this map, the political spectrum, holds immense power over us. It limits and guides what we believe is possible. It constrains and informs how we imagine our future. Today, we live at a crossroads.
Our global civilization is more powerful than ever before. And as its power has grown, so have the dangers it faces the prospect of world war, climate catastrophe, and the unraveling of the living world we depend on. All greater existential threats than perhaps any time in human history. And here we are, living right smack dab in. But there still is so much possibility. There's still a world where peace is possible. Basic needs are met.
Where we live in balance with the rest of the natural world. The collective path we all take and the map we go by will be determined by our political systems, which operate within the political spectrum. But surely the route we need to travel is more complex than just the left or the right. Where do we get this idea of a left wing or a right wing anyway? How is it in a world of such diversity of languages and traditions and religions? There's just two fricking wings. What are we, a bird?
Well, it all started during the French Revolution. And if we want to expand our map and chart a better direction, that's where our story needs to begin. When there's breaking news, reporting usually does a lousy job at providing context. It's often the most surface level information they can share before cutting to commercial.
Without the decades, even centuries of social, political, and economic dynamics that led to the breaking news in the first place, we forget that the past was filled with regular people and that current events are not an epilog, but part of history. There is no real separation between history and the present. It's one continuous story. And as we'll see, the phenomenon we called the French Revolution and its aftermath is not confined to the past, but still unfolding today.
As we learned in episode 11 of Human Nature Odyssey, which if you listen too great, but you don't need to have in order to listen to this sociologist and historian Emmanuel Wallerstein set out to create a conceptual framework to help us see the story we're all part of. So he wrote World Systems Analysis on the political and economic structures that shape our global civilization. In that episode, we focused on the economic side of things how capitalism molded our modern world system.
But Wallerstein believed it wasn't just capitalism that formed our modern world system. It was the political struggle for democracy that began with the French Revolution. In this three part series. We're exploring the origins of that political struggle, and by the end, we'll have followed this unfolding story right up to the present moment. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, most of Europe had been a land of kings.
The few countries without a king like the Dutch, Venetians and Swiss or exceptions. And they still had a small group of elites wielding power over the rest of the lower classes. Don't you worry. They weren't crazy monarchies were the norm. Medieval Europeans knew that the ancient Roman Republic, elected members of a Senate and parts of ancient Greece had something called a democracy. But in the mind of most Europeans, that was just ancient history.
But recently, Europeans were coming into contact with some Native American nations, like the Iroquois Confederacy, whose elected representatives made decisions collectively and were free from absolute rulers, which the Europeans thought was very odd. But Europe was changing. And over a couple centuries, the European mindset slowly started to shift. In 1762, French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau came to believe that freedom was natural and monarchy was not.
Rousseau famously wrote, quote, man is born free, but everywhere he's in chains. A couple of years later, Denis Diderot, another French thinker, put it a little more bluntly quote men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. So by the year 1789, the people of France were not happy. Even King Louis the 16th knew that. But did he know just how unhappy France had long been?
A highly stratified society, divided into the clergy, the nobility, and everyone else? But now more and more peasants were complaining that the top 1% of the nobility owned almost a third of the land in France, and somehow the wealthier you were, the less you had to pay in taxes. On top of this, the Treasury was facing economic troubles from costly overseas wars and famine in the countryside. The people did not have enough bread to eat.
But as King Louis wife, Marie Antoinette, may or may not have actually said, let them eat cake. Besides. Come on. Times have been tough before, but the monarchy has always survived. I mean, this is Louis the 16th. We're talking about the 16th. There's been 16 of them. And that's just the Louis. But just in case. This is why every king needs a good executioner. And there was none better than Charles and Reason. He was King Louis royal executioner.
And Charles on reason wasn't just your average run of the mill executioner. Now with a 40 year career. Charles Honoré was the best in the business. I'm Tony. If you needed someone, if this was your guy. But in July of 1789, a mob stormed the Bastille. Peasants burned their official feudal contracts, and thousands of Parisian women armed themselves with muskets and pitchforks and marched on the Palace of Versailles.
The calls for liberté, égalité, fraternité were heard from the largest cities to the smallest towns. France was now in the throes of a full on revolution. And when the revolutionary forces captured King Louis the 16th and sentenced him to death, guess who they called King Louie's own executioner, Charles Henri Sanson. That's right. Charles Henry was given the task of executing his very own employer of 40 years.
But do you think the best executioner in all of Paris hesitated for one moment before killing the king? I doubt it. The man's a profession. Study boss. So, after centuries of monarchy, the king is dead. Now what, sir? Kings have been killed before, but they were always replaced by another king. I mean, yeah, yeah. There's that runaway British colony. I think they're calling themselves the United States. They broke away from the King of England, but they didn't kill him.
England itself never even fully parted with its monarchy. There's still a fricking king of England today. But the people of France not only ended their monarchy, they created something entirely different. A democracy in the form of an elected republic for the French people. The revolution felt like a totally new world. And the people decided, you know, let's get crazy with this thing. Not only are we going to have a new form of government, we need a whole new calendar.
Yeah, yeah, it's it's no longer going to be 1789 in the year of our Lord. That's so Christian and King. That's old news now. This is year one. And we're not calling the months January, February and March anymore. Now, from now on. The months will be known as, grape harvest. Yeah, yeah. Followed by missed months. Then frost months and so on. The days will be ten hours long, and, weeks will last for ten days. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And each day will be named after a plant or flower or fruit.
So we'll call today Apple Day. Yeah. That's good. That's good. Tomorrow will be celery day. And then. Oh, of course, pear day. Oh, but what if we named each fifth day after an animal like, Goose Day or Turkey Day or or, Oh, donkey day. I mean, everybody's going to love donkey Day, right? Okay, who? Oh. And we'll name every 10th day after a farming tool like, plow day or shovel day, or my personal favorite, barrel day. Yeah, it's pretty good. Pretty good.
The new French Republic actually used this calendar from 1792 to 1806. Or. Oh. Sorry. From year one to year 14. And, honestly, I think we should go back to it. And the French Revolution didn't just have new ideas on how to structure society or write new calendars. It had some pretty innovative ideas on how to kill people to. This was thanks to a brand new invention, the guillotine, which consisted of a heavy steel blade quickly severing someone's head from their body.
While that might seem like a horrific way to go, at the time, it was actually considered the humane alternative. Unlike traditional forms of execution like hanging or beheading by an ax, at least the guillotine guaranteed a swift and sudden death. But before long, things got a little out of hand. Because how can you know who really supports the revolution and who's just faking it?
Well, Maximilien Robespierre emerged as one of the most influential revolutionaries, earning his reputation as the master of the blame game. Hey, Jack. The innkeeper says he misses the king, Robespierre declared. So Jack was sentenced to death and. And Marc Andre the baker. She was baking pastries in the shape of Marie Antoinette's face. That's not very revolutionary. And so, Marc Andre was also put to death. But one day, someone accused Robespierre of not being revolutionary enough.
And Robespierre, the expert finger pointer, took his turn at the guillotine. No, no, no. Once the revolution began, it was like a dam bursting from years of pent up suicidal anger. The worst of it was called the Reign of Terror. At its height, about 300,000 people all over France were arrested. Half the population of Paris at the time, 17,000 were executed, and 10,000 suffered slow deaths in the dungeons without ever getting a try.
Even the people who initially wanted a revolution were now pretty horrified at how things had spiraled out of control. How dare you say that? What do we do when we don't behold a whore? What does this have to do with the political spectrum? The left wing and the right wing? Well, when the revolution was first breaking out to avert further chaos, a National Assembly was assembled.
Wealthy commoners from across the country, along with the members of the nobility and clergy, gathered in a large meeting room to debate how much power King Louis the 16th should have. Some declared nun viva la revolution, while others were aghast. What are you talking about? King who is the best? As the debate reached, two major factions emerged. Those for revolution and those against people started seeding themselves with those they agreed with.
And in this large meeting room, the seating was divided into two physical weights. One member of the nobility who was actually there wrote, quote, I tried to sit in different parts of the hall and not to adopt any market spot so as to remain more the master of my opinion. But I was compelled absolutely to abandon the left, or else be condemned always to vote alone, and thus be subjected to jeers from the galleries.
Those for the revolution eventually found themselves sitting on the left wing of the room. And those for monarchy settled down on the right. And that is where we get the terms left wing and right wing. So the French Revolution was when the left wing and right wing were first introduced into our political vocabulary. And shortly after, a couple more terms were added that you'll recognize liberal and conservative, of course. Liberal and conservative tendencies have always existed.
If you mean those who want to stick with tradition versus those who want to change it. But in the wake of the French Revolution, those personal tendencies evolved into something new, something the French call an ideology. The word ideology was actually first coined in a French prison by an aristocratic philosopher awaiting trial during the Reign of Terror. He defined ideology as the science of ideas. But what the heck? What do you mean ideology was invented?
Having people always had a set of ideas or theories. Well, Emmanuel Wallerstein in World Systems Analysis argues that, quote, an ideology is more than a set of ideas or theories. It is more than a moral commitment or a worldview. It is a coherent strategy in the social arena from which one can draw quite specific political conclusions.
In this sense, one did not need ideologies in previous world systems, or indeed even in the modern world system before the concept of the normality of change, unquote. He's essentially saying that when living under a monarchy, a system where tradition is normal, but change isn't. You don't need an ideology. You just need to know if you're for the king or against the king.
But when there's no longer a king and social and political change becomes normal, you have to have an opinion on what kind of change you want. And these camps formed. The first ideological camp that emerged was called. Thank God I took French in high school, so I could pronounce this conservatism. Or for you English speakers out there, conservatism. You may sometimes hear conservatives referred to as reactionary. This isn't because conservatives just go around reacting to everything.
It's because conservatism originally formed in reaction to the French Revolution. Just like the people who sat on the right wing in the National Assembly, the conservative ideology essentially went, do you see what frickin happens when there's not a king? You say you don't like kings, but what about the people? Remember the reign of terror? Did you see how crazy people got? So that was right wing conservatism perspective. But then something a little ironic happened. There was this one guy.
His name was Napoleon. Even though this was a few years after the reign of Terror, Napoleon staged a coup d'etat, overthrew the young French Republic, and named himself the Emperor. Now, you might be thinking conservative would love this. They wanted the king, after all. But Napoleon would have been the first to tell you. No, no. I'm not a king. This isn't a monarchy. I'm for the revolution. Yeah, I love republics. Everyone should have a republic. What?
Just because I'm an emperor, I can't love republics. Oh! Come on. An emperor and a king are totally different things. An emperor? Napoleon was such a firm believer of liberté, égalité, fraternité that he decided the rest of Europe needed a generous helping of the French Revolution as well. So Napoleon and his army, when Galvan ING across Europe, they invaded Spain, Portugal, Austria, Prussia, Rome, Germany and Italy didn't exist yet, or they would have invaded them to.
Now, while Napoleon's France wasn't really a democracy anymore, even though it barely had been won since voting rights were limited, Napoleon at least spread the idea of democracy to other European countries. And while many people resented being invaded. Plenty of folks thought this whole democracy thing was actually not a bad idea. But as Napoleon spread revolutionary ideas across Europe, he accidentally spread something else as well a conservative backlash.
The reign of Terror was bad, but at least the chaos was confined to France. Now the plan's making this everyone's problem. And it wasn't just. The leaders of the invaded countries were resentful. Plenty of commoners resented the break down of age old traditions and social order, too. It was around this time that philosophers like Edmund Burke helped crystallize conservatism into an ideology. Burke was skeptical that much good would come from a republic where leaders campaigned to be elected.
In his book reflections on the Revolution in France, he wrote, quote, when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents in the construction of the state will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators. The instruments, not the guides of the people, if any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty.
Soberly limited and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors, who will produce something more splendidly popular, unquote. Beyond being skeptical of elections as popularity contests, Burke was wary of sudden change and believed tradition should be upheld. He also kind of calls commoners a Swedish multitude at one point. But Burke would say, well, look at what happened in France.
Clearly, the average person can't be trusted to make wise decisions in world systems analysis. Wallerstein emphasizes, quote, faith in hierarchy as both inevitable and desirable is the hallmark of conservatism, unquote. And for conservatives of this time, hierarchy was not just arbitrary. It's divinely ordained. So conservatives agreed. We definitely need a king. Well, I have good news for conservatives.
Napoleon was finally defeated in 1815 at the famous Battle of Waterloo, forcing him to give up his throne, his crown, and probably most painfully, his pride. The guy who once supported the revolution only to make himself emperor was exiled to Saint Helena, a tiny island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, where he spent the rest of his days. After the fall of Napoleon, the most powerful monarchies of Europe gathered for the Congress of Vienna. Come on, let's go. Wasn't it?
Then check out this place. Nice sturdy cones. Oh, this place is decked out in luxurious furnishings. Look by the brilliant chandeliers. Oh, man. All the big names are here. Emperor Francis, the first of Austria, saw Alexander the first Russia. King Frederick William the third of Prussia. And Lord Castlereagh of Britain. And these guys are discussing how to make sure that kind of French chaos never happens again. Sounds like they're all totally on the same page. I sounded kind of cute.
When despots get along. They all agree. France needs a normal fricking king again. But it shouldn't just be some random guy like Napoleon. The King is supposed to be ordained by God. That's why the king's son is usually the next in line. Shh. Okay. The talking. Okay, okay. Next son. Next son. Who is only the 16th. Next son. Oh, God. What? Louis the 17th died in a French prison cell during the revolution. Jesus. Okay. Who's next? Any other Louie's out there?
Oh. That's right. Yeah. There's Louie, the 16th brother. Also named Louie. Perfect. What are the chances? We'll come. Louie the 18th. And finally, all will be back to normal. And it kind of was. The French monarchy was restored, but it was never quite the same. Louis the 18th knew his ascension to the throne wasn't exactly popular. So to compromise, he agreed to make it a constitutional monarchy.
That meant there'd be some limits to his power and to be a parliament that even commoners could be elected to. You had to be a rich, property owning commoner, of course, and also a man. But there was one thing. Louis the 18th was not compromising on. We're finally getting rid of that stupid calendar. What day is it? Donkey day. No, it. It's Wednesday. We're calling it Wednesday again. But even though the French Revolution failed, it proved that monarchy wasn't invincible. Change was possible.
Other countries conservatives were concerned about France's influence on the rest of Europe. Conservative Prince Clemens von Mednick of Austria remarked, quote, When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold. Many conservative leaders, like Mednick, feared that change inevitably leads to revolution. So they did everything they could to resist it. However, there was another response to the fear of revolution. Reform.
If revolution was a kind of sickness that could spread to others, then as Mike Duncan, author and host of The Revolutions podcast, explains. Reformers argued that to prevent a revolution, governments needed a sort of inoculation to revolution. A small dose of change before it became a deadly contagion. This was the birth of the second ideology. Liberalism. Conservatism was a reaction to the French Revolution, and the liberalism was a reaction to conservatism.
Liberals heard the conservative argument and went, whoa, whoa whoa, hold on, guys, hold on. I actually think it's good that change happened. I agree, I agree. The French revolution. Holy crap. That was nuts. But you want to know why it got so out of hand? It's because we didn't have a democratic mechanism to allow gradual change to happen over time. We need to have some kind of balanced, moderate and civil process that can address the issues people are concerned with.
The liberals were more or less content with Louis the eighteenths constitutional monarchy and whatever they weren't content with. They at least now had a way to make their voices heard, even if their voices weren't always listened to. And like conservatism, liberalism spread across Europe. The first group to actually use the term liberal as a political label were Spanish citizens who pushed for their own constitution in 1812.
The term liberalism first appeared in English a few years later, in 1815. So the 1820s became the 1830s, and the 1830s became the 1840s. In a decades to a new type of building was developed. It was called a factory, where things could be manufactured quickly on a mass scale. These factories began popping up all over Europe. And this new contraption, called a locomotive train, slithered like a snake on tracks carrying passengers at unthinkable speeds, even up to 30mph.
Some critics worried whether such speeds would injure the human brain. Meanwhile, this starchy vegetable from the Andes mountains in South America, the potato became a major food staple across Europe. It was planted everywhere from Ireland to Russia and became the primary food source for most peasants. But this kind of monoculture, where a single crop is planted as far as the eye can see, can be vulnerable to disease like blight. And that's exactly what happened.
You've heard of the Irish Potato famine, but mass starvation wasn't limited to Ireland. The 1840s in Europe started to be called the Hungry 40s. Widespread famine was followed by a continent wide recession and financial crisis, which only made the food shortages worse. And though the French Revolution faded from living memory to something you heard about from your grandparents or read in history books, it stayed alive in many people's minds.
Everyone had their own opinion on the French Revolution as far east as Poland, north Sweden and south of Sicily. Nobles, the wealthy, even some commoners, had a stance. Was it a horrible atrocity or something that didn't go far enough? Was the reign of terror inevitable or a tragic mistake? Was the French Revolution an inspiration or cautionary tale? If Europe celebrated Thanksgiving, this would be one of those topics not to bring up with your family. And in every European country.
The undeniable question was, Will a revolution happen here? Right wing conservatives did everything they could to ensure the answer was no. Many liberals argued that this fear of revolution was exactly why monarchies should embrace reform. But liberals did not exactly represent what had been the actual left wing of the French National Assembly. You know, the people in favor of revolution.
Since the National Assembly, the revolutionaries have been pushed to the fringes of political discourse, meeting in cafes or muttering under their breaths in the fields and factories. It was in these spaces that the left wing evolved into a third ideology radicalism. And radicalism is a confusing word because in this historical context, it doesn't just mean extremism. It's actually its own ideology. There can be extremists in any ideology.
And radicalism wasn't just about revolution for the sake of revolution. It was an ideology centered around specific ideals like social and economic equality, the separation of church and state, and expanding who's allowed to participate in government. But when conservative French politician Francois Geisel heard the complaints that only the rich were able to participate in the new French government, Jizo responded, on which they view get rich.
But while the left wing radicals may have held no real positions of power, their ideas began to spread. At the beginning of 1848, a little pamphlet was published called The Communist Manifesto, written by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. It argued that Europe's power struggle wasn't just between the king and his subjects, but between the wealthy bourgeoisie and the poor proletariat. Since the French Revolution, conservatives had dominated politics across Europe.
Liberals held some influence, but it was pretty limited. Radicals could only theorize from pamphlets and book clubs, but that was about to change. Marx and Engels posited that a revolution of the proletariat wasn't just necessary. It was inevitable. Conservative leaders, for the most part, were not too worried. It's just radicals being radicals.
But in January 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville, the Minister of Foreign affairs in the French government, spoke before his colleagues of the legislature and issued a grave warning. Quote, I am told that there is no danger because there are no rights. I am told that because there is no visible disorder on the surface of society, there is no revolution at hand. Gentlemen, permit me to say that I believe you are mistaken. True. There is no actual disorder. But it has entered deeply into men's minds.
Do you not see that they are gradually forming opinions and ideas that are destined not only to upset this or that law, ministry, or even form of government, but society itself, until it totters upon the foundations on which it rests today. Do you not listen to what they say to themselves each day? Do you not hear them repeating unceasingly, that all that is above them is incapable and unworthy of governing them? That the distribution of goods prevalent until now throughout the world is unjust?
That property rests on a foundation that is not an equitable one. And do you not realize that when such opinions take root, when they spread in an almost universal manner, when they sink deeply into the masses, they are bound to bring with them sooner or later. I know not when or how a most formidable revolution. This, gentlemen, is my profound conviction. I believe that we are at this moment sleeping on a volcano. And turned out that the Tocqueville nailed it. The volcano was about to erupt.
Let us see it one day. A mysterious poster appeared on the narrow cobblestone streets of Palermo, Sicily, which, like most of Europe, was under monarchical rule. The poster read, quote, in a few days there will be a revolution. Sicilians rise up. Your moment of freedom has arrived, unquote. It was signed by the Revolutionary Committee. The thing was, there was no such thing as a revolutionary committee. Historian Christopher Clark explains that the poster was a sort of prank by a radical.
Clark goes on, quote. Sure enough, on the day that the revolution had been announced for everybody did show up to see what was going to happen. Nothing happened because nothing had been planned, except that the troops had been doubled and tripled throughout Palermo, unquote. So a massive crowd of ordinary people gathered, waiting to see if a revolution was going to happen. While soldiers were stationed to prevent the violence broke out between the two groups.
And this, ironically, was what sparked the revolution. Word of the unrest in Sicily traveled slowly, moving from town to town as the recently invented telegraph was still not widely available. So news traveled up the Italian peninsula across the Alps and eventually reached Paris. The cultural and political heart of Europe. When the people of Paris heard the small island of Sicily was having a revolution, they essentially went, oh, nice job, guys. But where the revolutionary process.
We'll take it from here. In 1848, the King of France was Louis Phillipe. The first? Yeah. That's right. Yet another Louis and King Louis Phillipe feared his subjects getting riled up over what was happening in Sicily. So he banned an upcoming banquet for liberal reform, which backfired and riled the people up even more than the banquet ever could.
Thousands of people took to the streets, building barricades out of whatever they could find tables, chairs, dressers, pieces of cobblestone or broken down carriages. These barricades blocked the roads, effectively shutting down Paris. You can actually see for yourself what this looked like. One of the earliest photographs ever taken was of a street in Paris lined with the barricades in 1848, opposed to pick on a Patreon.
The next day, in an attempt to placate the angry masses, King Louis Phillipe dismissed his minister, Francois Geisel. You know the guy who said, get rich? But even this wasn't enough to stop the revolutionary fervor. Paris turned into a war zone. Many soldiers sided with the revolutionaries, realizing the jig was up. King Louis Phillipe put on a disguise and fled the country. In just three days, the people of France yet again toppled their monarchy.
But for the rest of Europe, things were just getting started. Over in Austria, students marched on the Imperial Palace and soldiers opened fire on the crowd. Workers joined the students in solidarity. In response, the Austrian emperor promised reforms and dismissed the conservative chancellor, Prince Clemens von Mednick, the same guy who said When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold. Mednick turned out to be right. Europe was catching a cold.
But little did he know, he would be personally ejected from power, like a used tissue in a trash can. And the contagion only continued to spread from there. Revolts broke out in Hungary. There was a revolution in Prague, then Romanian. In Berlin. A young law student wrote of the euphoria overtaking his city, quote. My heart was beating so hard I thought it was going to blow a hole in my chest. I had to get out of my room.
He ran out of his room and joined thousands of others in the soot covered streets. Quote I felt I could hear everybody else's hearts beating. There were more revolts in Denmark than Poland. The Pope fled from Rome, and for the first time in almost 2000 years, the people declared a new Roman Republic. By the end of the spring 1848, most of Europe had erupted in revolution. Conservative monarchies were shocked by how swift and intense the uprisings were.
But within months they organized counter revolutions to regain power. Austria's emperor asked Russia's czar to send Russian troops to help crush the Austrian rebellion. And here's the interesting thing. So when Russian troops invaded Austria, Russia wasn't at war with Austria. It was at war with Austria. The Liberals and radicals. These weren't wars between countries. They were wars between ideologies. Allegiance to ideology proved to be more important than allegiance to one's own country.
Even though liberals and radicals joined together for the sake of revolution, they were far from united. The liberals, mostly made up of the middle and upper classes, wanted moderate reforms like participation and government for those who own property. The radicals mostly made up of lower classes like workers, students and artisans, didn't just want reform. They wanted an end to the monarchy, a redistribution of wealth and the right to vote, regardless of owning property.
And while radicals fought on the streets and liberals drafted constitutions from the safety of meeting rooms, resentment from these ideologies grew. But this temporary alliance of liberals and radicals helped win some initial victories. Prussia, Austria, Tuscany, Switzerland, Denmark and Hungary all wrote constitutions for the very first time, promising to expand participation in government and to limit the powers of the king.
The people of France, after having successfully toppled their monarchy in just three days, replaced it once again with a republic. But many French radicals felt this new republic still only served the wealthy. So France, being the revolutionary prose, had a second revolution. The very same year, this time the radicals fought against the liberals. The liberal French government cracked down hard on their former compatriots, deploying 40,000 troops to Paris.
The streets were soon filled with radical black. And this didn't just happen in France. From Berlin to Milan, Budapest and Krakow, radicals resisted the new liberal reforms in favor of something more. Surprise, surprise. Radical. Meanwhile, conservatives saw this divide and used it to their advantage, offering to help suppress the radical protests in return for rolling back liberal reforms. And in many cases, the new Liberal governments, desperate for order, accepted this offer.
What began as an alliance between liberals and radicals ended as an alliance between liberals and conservatives. Sicilian revolutionary Francesco Kripke reported that, quote, the moderates feared the victory of the people more than that of the troops, unquote. The wars raged on for months, but by the summer of 1849, the revolutions were completely crushed and many liberal reforms were undone. The new constitutions were abolished and parliaments were dissolved.
France invaded Rome, defeated the new republic, and reinstated the Pope. Kings and emperors who once promised change, now declared. Never mind. Even in Palermo, Sicily, where the revolution began, the Sicilian king crushed the uprising into submission. When all was said and done, almost none of the attempts to establish democratic republics withstood the counter revolutions. The only exception was France.
But they elected Napoleon's nephew, who pulled a classic Napoleon move and declared himself an emperor. Turning France back into an empire. Thank you very much for democratically electing me. I will now be your emperor, and there will be no more elections. De Tocqueville was right that a volcano was about to erupt in Europe. But after the dust settled and the lava hardened, the volcano remained intact.
Historian AJP Taylor refers to the 1848 revolutions as the quote turning point that did not turn. What began as a conversation in France's National Assembly between a liberal left and right wing, now raged across Europe. And before long, the rest of the world as kings were dethroned and Europe's former colonies gained independence. People around the world faced the question the king is dead now. What? Thanks for listening. This was part one of a three part series.
In the next two episodes, we'll trace how the ideological struggle between liberals, conservatives, and radicals continued to evolve, fueling world wars, cold wars, and culture wars. We'll explore the rise of new ideas, forms of government strategies, and the struggle not only against monarchy, but against capitalism itself. History continues to unfold. The past is the present, and the future is being written.
And until next time, I hope you'll consider how the historic struggles are playing out and current events. What echoes of the past do you hear today? What can be learned from what came before? How might the future be different? Well, I don't know exactly how they'll shape the future. But joining the Human Nature Odyssey Patreon certainly wouldn't hurt. There, you'll have access to bonus episodes, additional thoughts and writings, and audiobook readings. Your support makes this podcast possible.
If you enjoy Human Nature Odyssey, please share it with a friend. Thank you to Brian, Nori, Mark, Hanin, Maggie, Nina, Jessy, Scheer, Michael, and Alexis for your input and feedback on this episode. This series is made in association with the Post Carbon Institute. You can learn more at resilience StarTalk. And as always, our theme music is Celestial Soda Pop by Ray Lynch. You can find the link in our show notes. Talk with you soon.