What were the reasons for the French Revolution of 1848.

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,198
Sydney
#11
the usual Parisian sport of street rioting against any government took a turn for the worst when some accidental firing resulted in blood on the pavement.
Louis-Phillipe will to rule collapsed and he ran away leaving a vacuum behind , soon filled by demagogues
 
Oct 2013
12,768
Europix
#12
the usual Parisian sport of street rioting against any government took a turn for the worst when some accidental firing resulted in blood on the pavement.
Louis-Phillipe will to rule collapsed and he ran away leaving a vacuum behind , soon filled by demagogues
Well, they did brought the army, if my memory doesn't fail me. And when they felt endangered by the protesters, they did what army is trained for: shoot to kill. The incident resulted in 30 to more than 50
(depending on sources) dead protesters.
 
Oct 2013
12,768
Europix
#13
@Terentius and funakison

I think I somehow got the "welfare" thing.

iMHO, that passage in Wiki, (and generally speaking) in that context is inappropriate. Welfare has another meaning, it's another concept.

At the time, there were mutual solidarity associations (a bit of a successor of guilds), based on private initiative (be them workers themselves, church/clerics, philanthropists). I've red somewhere that there were some 150-200 of them in Paris only, that their funds often were tiny (often baddly managed), the laws affecting their status changed more than once since 1789 revolution, etc, etc.

Honestly, I believe talking about "welfare", using the term "welfare" is extremely misleading in understanding the period and the context.
 
Jan 2010
4,035
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#14
@Terentius and funakison

I think I somehow got the "welfare" thing.

iMHO, that passage in Wiki, (and generally speaking) in that context is inappropriate. Welfare has another meaning, it's another concept.

At the time, there were mutual solidarity associations (a bit of a successor of guilds), based on private initiative (be them workers themselves, church/clerics, philanthropists). I've red somewhere that there were some 150-200 of them in Paris only, that their funds often were tiny (often baddly managed), the laws affecting their status changed more than once since 1789 revolution, etc, etc.

Honestly, I believe talking about "welfare", using the term "welfare" is extremely misleading in understanding the period and the context.
I was also pondering what "welfare" meant on that Wiki, as the only link appears to be to welfare state policies that arose much later.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,198
Sydney
#15
I guess I should check it but I have vague memories of the demagogues setting up national worksites
to pay people digging trench in the invalids gardens
then filling them up to restart again .
one could call it an improvment on today's welfare , at least no matter how pointless there was some work done
 
Oct 2013
12,768
Europix
#16
I was also pondering what "welfare" meant on that Wiki, as the only link appears to be to welfare state policies that arose much later.
While ago, someone called me a "semantical nitpicker". Well, I might be one.

I suppose the "welfare" word was used more fir the convenience, for not digressing, lengthening the article. But that made it misleading, as "welfare" is a different concept and has different connotations, that cannot be applied to the reality in early 19th's France/Paris.

I would have formulated rather something like "large part of Paris was unemployed, depending on inefficient, badly financed and managed mutual assistance organisations", with a [*] linking to the article dealing with the history of "mutualites". (which, if I'm not wrong, doesn't exists ...)

Less clear (?), but less misleading.

As it's said: "tradutore traditore". We're easily prone to misunderstanding, especially in international forums, with people coming from different languages and cultures.
 
Jun 2017
2,517
Connecticut
#17
1848 was a year of revolution, a reason I can think of for the revolution's success would be Napoleon III being able to get the republicans and conservatives enthusiastically on board, a rare sort of consensus solution in this era that led to overwhelmingly supported regime change that did not exist most anywhere else. The Orleans dynasty and Louis Phillippe was also the closest sort a monarchy's initial existence ever felt to being a compromise and just not the will to keep him in power from the atristocracy who'd probably rather have Napoleon, nor the people to whom his main appeal as "Citizen King" was just not being Charles. The man also didn't really want power and didn't have the will to fight for his throne, something the other monarch's of Europe(who had much more well established conservative support) didn't have holding them back. Hence France had regime change and most every other revolution in 1848 failed or briefly succeeded and was put down.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,198
Sydney
#18
Louis Phillipe support was with the bourgeoisy ,
they have the money and influence but not much street muscle
Louis Phillipe could have mounted a military repression ,
he still had the whole of France and had only lost the Paris street , but he flunked it

Louis Napoleon ran a populist campaign appealing to the old sympathies for the revolution and the Empire
got elected by the people then got rid of them
 

Similar History Discussions