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.

RE: Back to the Future

In response to this post.

I don’t know whether this emphasis on peace is simply a reaction to the tumultuous time immediately beforehand and part of an attempt to rebuild Europe, or whether the function of war in the eyes of monarchs has changed and at this time the possible unifying effect and gains of territory and wealth are not worth the damage done...

Probably a little bit of both. After coming off this long stretch of warfare, peace seemed like a very good idea and monarchs were more reluctant to go to war.

I think the important thing to focus on would be Napoleon's legacy in international relations. Keeping in mind that the Napoleonic wars ripped apart Europe and devastated populations of peasants, with the increasing importance of the common people, I feel like Coffin (for once), while perhaps simplifying the issue, did represent it accurately. Additionally, I think that the Napoleonic wars and French Revolution left bloody scars which definitely acted as a added motivation, if not desperation, for peace and stability. Monarchs who had been attacked and ousted because of Napoleon had a great desire to be legitimized, thus solidifying their power, and therefore would make sacrifices should they be necessary.

Addressing the second point of a possible change in monarchs' perception of warfare: I noticed something similar while doing the reading. It seemed like war became used more as a tool, a means to a specific, calculated end. Cost versus benefit definitely came to my mind, especially seen in the Balkan conflicts. Again this resonates with the emergence of alliances. "You do this for me, and I'll do this for you." A "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of scenario. It seems like countries no longer marched off on strictly territorial disputes, but rather looked for greater reasons (e.g. religion) that would stir them to fight.