OCR Specification focus:
‘Metternich and state authorities responded with repression and reform (1848/1849).’
In 1848–1849, revolutions across the German Confederation challenged conservative rule. State authorities, led by Metternich, responded with repression and selective reform to suppress nationalist and liberal demands.
Metternich’s Conservative Order and the Revolutionary Challenge
The Pre-1848 Political Climate
Before 1848, the German Confederation was dominated by the conservative order established at the Congress of Vienna (1815), with Prince Klemens von Metternich of Austria as its chief architect. His policies aimed to preserve monarchical authority, aristocratic privilege, and the status quo, fearing the spread of revolutionary ideas from France and beyond.
Metternich System: A political order in post-1815 Europe characterised by conservative dominance, censorship, suppression of liberal and nationalist movements, and reliance on alliances like the Holy Alliance to maintain stability.
Metternich’s system relied on strict press censorship, police surveillance, and the Carlsbad Decrees (1819), which curtailed nationalist student groups and limited university freedoms. Yet, rising liberalism, nationalism, and economic distress in the 1840s—caused by harvest failures, industrialisation, and unemployment—fuelled revolutionary fervour across German states.
The Outbreak of Revolution and Initial Responses
Metternich’s Fall (March 1848)
Revolution erupted in Paris (February 1848) and rapidly spread to the German lands. In Vienna, mass demonstrations forced Metternich to resign on 13 March 1848, symbolising the collapse of the old order’s authority. His resignation emboldened revolutionaries across the German Confederation, leading to uprisings in Berlin, Baden, and elsewhere.
Despite Metternich’s departure, the conservative elite remained influential. Monarchs and ministers initially adopted a conciliatory approach, promising constitutions, press freedoms, and national assemblies. These concessions aimed to defuse unrest while allowing the state to regroup and plan its counter-offensive.
Instruments of Repression Across the German States
Austria’s Strategy: Suppression and Centralisation
Although weakened by Metternich’s fall, Austria remained committed to restoring order. The empire faced revolts not only in Vienna but also in its Italian and Hungarian territories. Under leaders like Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, Austria reorganised its army and gradually reasserted control:
Vienna Uprising (October 1848): Imperial troops crushed the rebellion with brutal force, executing leaders and re-establishing imperial authority.
“Grosse Barricade in der Jägerzeile,” Vienna, October 1848. The scene shows insurgent defences and the urban environment contested by imperial troops during the suppression of the uprising. Minor ornamental detail reflects the original 1848 print but does not add extraneous syllabus content. Source
Hungarian Revolution: Austrian forces, with Russian assistance, suppressed Hungarian independence by mid-1849.
Abolition of the Pillersdorf Constitution: Initially granted in April 1848, this constitution was replaced with the Stadion Constitution (March 1849), imposed without consent and reasserting imperial dominance.
These actions marked Austria’s shift from concession to authoritarian restoration, demonstrating the persistence of conservative control despite revolutionary upheaval.
Prussia’s Approach: Tactical Concession and Retrenchment
In Prussia, King Frederick William IV initially responded to revolution with symbolic gestures. He removed conservative ministers, promised a constitution, and endorsed the idea of a united Germany under Prussian leadership. However, by late 1848, he reversed course:
Berlin Barricades (March 1848): Troops fired on demonstrators, killing hundreds, revealing the regime’s willingness to use violence.
Barricade on Breite Straße, Berlin (March 1848). The image shows revolutionary barricades in an urban street setting where Prussian troops confronted demonstrators, illustrating the physical reality of state repression. Source
Constitution of December 1848: Drafted unilaterally by the king, this constitution retained significant royal prerogatives, including control over the military and foreign policy.
Dissolution of the Prussian National Assembly: The assembly, which had sought liberal reforms, was dissolved by force in November 1848.
Prussia’s actions typified a broader conservative pattern: early concessions followed by the reassertion of monarchical authority once revolutionary momentum waned.
The Role of the German Confederation and Smaller States
Coordinated Suppression and Restoration
Many smaller German states—such as Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover—experienced similar cycles of concession and repression. Initially granting constitutions or liberal reforms, they later rescinded them once revolutionary forces weakened. Monarchs dissolved assemblies, arrested radical leaders, and reinstated censorship.
The Bundestag (Federal Diet) of the German Confederation, suspended during the upheaval, was restored in 1850. It resumed its role as a conservative instrument, coordinating repression and re-establishing the pre-1848 order, though now more cautious of nationalist pressures.
Counter-Revolution and the Demise of the Frankfurt Parliament
Repression of the National Assembly
The Frankfurt Parliament (May 1848 – June 1849) sought to unify Germany under a liberal constitution. However, its authority depended on state cooperation. As monarchs regained strength, they withdrew their delegates, undermining the parliament’s legitimacy.
April 1849: Frederick William IV rejected the imperial crown offered by the Frankfurt Assembly, declaring he would not accept a “crown from the gutter.”
May 1849: Prussian troops suppressed uprisings in Baden and Saxony inspired by the parliament’s constitution.
The parliament disbanded by June 1849, symbolising the triumph of conservative forces over revolutionary aspirations.
The parliament’s failure underscored the decisive role of state authority and military power in shaping outcomes. Liberal ideals proved insufficient without coercive capacity.
Reform as a Tool of Control
Selective Reform to Undermine Revolution
Repression alone did not restore stability; many rulers combined coercion with selective reform to neutralise opposition. These reforms aimed not to democratise but to modernise governance and strengthen state control.
Key examples included:
Administrative reforms: Enhanced bureaucratic efficiency and centralisation increased state power.
Economic policies: Infrastructure projects, such as railways, fostered loyalty by promoting prosperity.
Limited constitutionalism: Some states retained parliaments but curtailed their powers, using them as instruments of regime legitimacy.
Such reforms reflected an understanding that adaptation could reinforce conservative rule, blunting revolutionary fervour while preserving authority.
Legacy of Repression and State Authority
The repression of 1848–1849 had profound consequences for German nationalism and political development:
Conservative dominance was reasserted across the German Confederation, with monarchs and aristocracies consolidating their authority.
Liberal and nationalist movements were weakened, though not eradicated; their experiences informed future strategies.
Prussia and Austria emerged as dominant powers, setting the stage for later conflicts over German unification.
The revolutions demonstrated that military power and state coercion remained decisive in nineteenth-century politics.
Ultimately, Metternich’s legacy of authoritarian resilience endured beyond his resignation. Though the revolutions revealed the depth of nationalist and liberal sentiment, they also underscored the enduring capacity of conservative states to repress, adapt, and survive in the face of ideological challenge.
FAQ
Metternich’s resignation on 13 March 1848 symbolised the collapse of Austria’s conservative system and emboldened revolutionaries. However, Austria’s ruling elite quickly regrouped under new leadership, notably Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, who combined limited concessions with military force.
This shift allowed Austria to centralise decision-making, reorganise the army, and launch counter-revolutionary campaigns across its empire. Although Metternich’s departure marked the end of his personal influence, his legacy of authoritarian control continued to guide Austrian policy throughout 1848–1849.
Foreign intervention, especially from Russia, was critical in suppressing revolts and preserving conservative order. The most significant example was the Hungarian uprising, where Tsar Nicholas I sent Russian troops in 1849 to assist Austria.
This intervention helped crush Hungarian resistance and stabilise Austria, allowing it to reassert influence within the German Confederation. The reliance on foreign support demonstrated both the fragility of revolutionary movements and the strength of conservative alliances across Europe.
Initial concessions, such as promises of constitutions and press freedoms, were strategic attempts to calm unrest and prevent the escalation of revolutionary violence. Monarchs hoped these gestures would satisfy moderate liberals while buying time to reorganise their forces.
Once revolutionary momentum declined, rulers reasserted control by revoking or altering these reforms. For example, Frederick William IV replaced liberal promises with a constitution that preserved royal power, demonstrating how temporary concessions were used to maintain long-term authority.
Following the revolutions, censorship and policing became more systematic and coordinated across the German Confederation. States expanded police networks, monitored political societies, and infiltrated revolutionary groups.
Press censorship was tightened, restricting newspapers and pamphlets that promoted liberal or nationalist ideas.
Universities were placed under closer state control, limiting student activism.
Secret police forces shared intelligence across borders, strengthening surveillance of political dissidents.
These measures prevented the rapid spread of revolutionary ideas and discouraged organised opposition in the 1850s.
The Frankfurt Parliament’s collapse highlighted the limits of liberal nationalism without state backing or military power. Its inability to enforce decisions revealed the dominance of monarchies and armies in shaping political outcomes.
However, its legacy endured. The idea of a unified Germany under a constitutional framework remained influential, and future movements learned from its mistakes. Later nationalists focused on securing state support—particularly from Prussia—demonstrating a strategic shift from purely ideological movements to power-based approaches.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two ways in which state authorities responded to the revolutions of 1848–1849 in the German Confederation.
Mark scheme:
1 mark for each correct response, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Accept any two of the following (or other valid responses):
Use of military force to crush uprisings (e.g. Vienna October Uprising, Berlin Barricades).
Dissolution of revolutionary assemblies (e.g. Prussian National Assembly, Frankfurt Parliament).
Censorship and surveillance to suppress revolutionary ideas.
Selective constitutional reform to regain control.
Reassertion of monarchical authority and restoration of conservative rule.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how repression helped conservative rulers in the German Confederation maintain control during and after the revolutions of 1848–1849.
Mark scheme:
Award up to 6 marks for a focused, well-explained answer.
1–2 marks: Basic description of events with limited explanation (e.g. mentions that armies suppressed revolts).
3–4 marks: Clear explanation of how repression maintained control, with some specific examples (e.g. crushing the Vienna uprising, dissolving the Frankfurt Parliament).
5–6 marks: Detailed explanation showing clear understanding of methods and their consequences, with accurate use of key terms and multiple examples.
Reference to military suppression (e.g. Austrian troops in Vienna, Prussian troops in Baden and Saxony).
Restoration of monarchies and reversal of revolutionary reforms.
Use of police powers, censorship, and dissolution to dismantle revolutionary networks.
Demonstration that repression weakened liberal and nationalist movements, reasserting conservative authority and delaying unification.
