Bismarck: Machiavelli Lover

As I was reading about Bismarck last night, I couldn't help but think that he reminded me of someone. Then, I read zak p's blog post and all became clear.

I completely agree that Bismarck "ruled" with Machiavellian principles at the root of his decisions. Thinking back to the lion/fox metaphor that were talking about last semester, it is clear that Bismarck completely fulfilled these criterion. As a lion, he didn't shy away from war, encouraging change through "Iron and Blood." As a fox he successfully manipulated competing nations (Austria, Denmark, and France) to move against one another, almost like playing a game of tic-tac-toe. At the same time, he also worked to appeal to the working-class man, always trying to appear as though he was working for the underdog (as briefly discussed in class).

The more I read, the more respect I gained, but also lost, for him. On one hand, his political mind is unparalleled (at least when compared with previous rulers we have learned about this year). Yes, many before him ruled with great authority, but none was so clearly manipulative. On the other hand, I could not help but think, who on earth would do such things? Falsifying documents, breaking agreements...

And then I thought about the Zimmerman Telegram, another case in which (although not falsified) a document played a key role a nation's declaration of war.

Similarly, in class today, many of us (yours truly included), delved into wily ways. While many of us forgot about public opinion, Bismarck obviously had thought that out, fulfilling a Machiavellian expectation. Setting aside the matter of dressing up Prussians as Austrians and launching "defensive" against the "aggressors," why did we all turn to deception? Was it just spitting back out the textbook? Could the Prussian/Austrian/French(/Danish) conflicts have been resolved in a way other than war?

Britain, France, and French Kings: 732-742

In the year and a half since Western Civ, I had conveniently forgotten that Liberty Leading the People was not a depiction of the French Revolution of the 1790's, but rather of the revolutions of 1830. This is slightly embarrassing because on the whole I'd like to think more highly of my memory.

Aside from this striking revelation, the reading did little to inspire any sort of excited spark in me. What I did notice however, follows:

-On Abdication: Both Charles X (ruled 1824-1830)and his successor, Louis Philippe (1830-1848) abdicated. What was this motivated by? I thought about other French rulers who had also abdicated and their possible motivations (saving their lives, etc., etc.), but my intuition (maybe hearkening back to Metternich) directed me towards peace. While obviously the abdications of two rulers in quick succession cannot be explained by a mere desire for harmony, in combination with fear for life and scarily passionate, nationalistic citizens, certainly would do it.

-On Britain and France's "revolutions": Obviously, and as she probably proudly proclaims, Britain never went through an outright revolution. France, oh, the ever volatile France, obviously did...in fact they went through a couple. Slow change versus stuttering change. What truly was accomplished with warfare? Probably very little. Since in saying this I am not trying to be pro-British or anti-revolution, I shall point out the following. The Chartist Petition obviously became a thing around which Brits could organize themselves, something they could become passionate about, and even consider dying for; however, even within the classification of "Chartist," several subgroups undermined any real unity. Conversely, in France, (coincidentally seen in Delacroix's painting), the revolutions seemed to be a fountain spouting nationalism, no matter how crushed or oppressed it might have been.