Revolutions of 1848 in the German States (Part 3 of 5)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- www.tomrichey.net
In the third part of my lecture on the Revolutions of 1848, I focus on the revolutions in the German states - namely in Prussia and the Austrian Empire. Prussia and Austria both experienced upheavals as liberals and nationalists attempted to overthrow the conservative governing regimes. Eventually, the conservatives regained power - with a little outside help from Russia in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution - and Germany would not be unified through any "ism," but through Blood and Iron.
Check out my AP European History Review Playlist:
• AP European History Re...
"get up man"
First on my favorite TH-cam channel. Thank you Mr. Richest for helping me prepare for the AP exam. I feel REALLY good about my teat
Test. Not teat
Haha Thanks for clearing that up!
Almost everything about Austria. I'm waiting for the statement about the German states.
The Constitution of 1848 was actually fairly modern and some traces of it can be found in the current Constitution of 1949. It met the liberals and leftist demands for seperated branches of government and checks and balances.
One of the reasons it failed was that the military was under executive control which was at the time the Prussian king. The Constitution did not make possible to control him, so he basically ignored it.
2023 and these are still lifesaving😭😭😭
thank you so much, you've made it so clear :)
The thing is Hungary could've won even after the Russian intervention: we had a small window of opportunity in the summer of 1849 to defeat the Austrian armies (during the Spring Offensive we've kicked their asses in 7 major battles in less than 2 months, so they were rather demoralised) and the Russian armies separately before they could merge. Unfortunately Kossuth (the elected President-Regent) got paranoid thinking that Görgey, the commanding general of the revolutionary forces was trying to usurp him, and put Dembesky who already lost an important battle earlier that year in charge, who managed to muck things up again.
Mr. RICKEY will you ever do a video on Latin America?
He talks way too much about other things than just the revolutions in Germany
I also think so, Baden, where the revolution attempt had most succes, is not noted.
Really good channel, just finished my AS level history which was based on Italian unification, and do Unification of Germany for A2, so good to know a little bit more before going into it, keep up the good work :)
Will do! Glad I was able to help you! The next segment will focus on Italy - looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that one.
Tom Richey I will definitely be watching that, especially if Garibaldi gets a good mention :)
That's a very nice shirt Tom. Just out of interest have you travelled in Europe much?
You are too oversimplifying the Austro-Hungarian conflict. That was not only a Hungarian thing. The Austriran Empire consisted of many culture groups, there were Austrians, which were(actually they are even today) divided to subgroups, I am not going to go into that because it does not matter now, since the Austrian part was nationalistically stable, the Hungarians, which are Ugro-Finnish culture group, Slovaks, Czechs and Poles, that are Central Slavic culture group, Croatians, Slovenians and Serbs, which are South Slavic culture group and, last but not least, Romanians and Ruthenians(west Ukrainians) which are East Slavic culture group(please note, that Hungary before 1918 and Hungary after 1918 even have in some Slavic languages different names - the kingdom is Uhry/Uhorsko/Uhersko/Ogrska/Ugarska... and the republic is Madjarsko/Madzharska - based on hungarian Magyarország). There was also Serbian, Romanian, Slovak and Croatian part of the revolutions. Why? Hungary didn't accept that they are a cultural alliance and tried to consider everyone as a one Hungarian nation. That was a little mistake, because there already were movements to accept these nationalities within the empire. So the Slavic nations rose and basically tried to join the Habsburgs in counter-revolution of Hungarians. So there was a revolution and to counter that revolution they used another revolution(s). However, it did not go as planned, because the descision was made to formally financially and millitarily support Croatia in the counter-revolutionary effort, which was not met by the people of Vienna with so much enthusiasm as with which it was made by the Austrian minister of war, which was lynched leading to the October crisis in which the Emperor fled Vienna and ended up in Olomouc, the croatian one led by Josip Jelačić, the Ban of Croatia, which was a pretty much more or less an official counter-revolution thanks to the formal descision, not as much as revolution in the sense of other Slavic revolutions like the Slovak uprising(which also recieved some Austrian support, although there was no fight between Hungarian and Slovak forces, mainly because the Hungarians were too busy fighting Croatians, Slovaks had their main stronghold in forresty mountains of western Slovakia, a place of a defensive terrain and hard to conquer, so they did not attack them, and Slovaks did not recieve the promised reinforcements from Vienna, the two armies just sat on two hills roughly a kilometer appart for, I think it was less than a week, and then went all about their business). The Ban managed to ban Hungarians for 1,5 years, but he was not doing particullarly well, so the Tzar Nikolai said he can not let this happen, Hungarians need to get their ass kicked and marched with his 300 000 men to Vilagos(now Siria in Romania) and gave Hungarians a vilagos(since then it is a synonym for ass-kicking in countries of former Austria-Hungary).
Vilagos! I will remember that. Perhaps, I should tell my students I will give them a vilagos if they don't behave themselves!
Thanks for the additional context. The videos I make are for audiences taking survey level courses in European History so this explains why I didn't go as deeply as you would have liked but I appreciate knowing more as a result of your comment!
Tom Richey :) Yeah, I know that it is no need to go that deep as I went, I could not resist to comment about my own history(I come from a town between those two hills on which the Slovak and Hungarian "armies", but they were more like a lot of guys with improvised weapons, met). Thanks for your videos anyway, I love them, I learned things I did not know.
+Thrust vectoring One very important thing about "Hungarisation", and the accuses of Hungary being nationalistic with his national minorities. The leading Hungarian politicians were realistic, and they realised that they will not achieve a national and linguitic Magyarisation of the country very soon. So their main purpose was to make the nationalities sympathetic to them, and introduce the Hungarian language lessons in schools and in public administration. Because it was an interetning thing: in the kingdom of Hungary, which was a part of the Habsburg Empire, Hungary remained an autonomous kingdom, and every austrian emperor, was crowned as Hungarian King too, and had to be accepted, at least in a symbolic way, by the Diet of Hungary. But in this Hungarian kingdom until 1846, the official language was not the Hungarian, but the Latin, a reminiscence of the old medieval times. And this is why the nationalities of Hungary did not knew almos any Hungarian. So the Hungarian Liberal politicians wanted to introduce the Hungarian language lessons in schools, but only that, which meaned that every other lesson (mathematics, geography, etc.) will be learned in the language of the minority in case, but they will have to learn Hungarian as a foreign language lesson. Another place where the Hungarian politicians wanted to introduce Hungarian language was the administration, thinking that an unified state should have a single language of politics, that the politicians to understand each others, and the official documents issued by the different places of the country to be understandable to everybody. They taught that this will help them to ally the nationalities within their borders to their cause against the attacks from the outside, like of the Habsburg armies. So the Hungarians, at least in 1848-49 wanted not to assimilate the nationalities, but only to make them ally. They taught that the abolition of aristocratic privileges, liberation from serfdom of the peasants of the country, liberty of speech and press will make the nationalities as allies of the Hungarian cause, and with this to form a political Hungarian nation to include all citisens with no difference to their language or national origin. Nota bene, that long after the defeat of the revolution, and the creation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and the introduction of the Hungarian lessons in schools, after 50 years of so called Magyarization (which was mostly only on paper), only 12,7 % of the Romanian population living in Hungary could speak Hungarian in some degree (Statistics of Hungary from 1910)...
But returning to the revolution. In the first months after the revolution, the Habsburgs seemed to accept all Hungarian demands of autonomy and reform laws, and played as their friends, but they sent their instigating agents to the nationalities, and promised them that if they will ally with them, they will partage the Hungarian lands, and create territories in which they will rule as a ruling race, promising to the Serbs that they will have a Voyvodate in Southern Hungary, to the Romanians Transylvania and Eastern Hungary (the Romanians also had instigators from Wallachia and Moldavia, the two Romanian principalities under Turkish influence, who convinced them to create an unified Daco-Romania, which will include the two principalities, Transylvania, Bukovina and Eastern Hungary), so they made these nationalities as enemies of the Hungarians, because they wanted to take these lands from Hungary. Of course Hungary could not accept this, and this is why the conflicts between them started. Of course, the Austrians would not fulfil their promises towards the nationalities after the end of the revolution, they just fooled them temporarily, until their greatest enemy, the Hungarians, will be defeated.
Hungarians at the first months of the revolutions behaved benevolently towards the minorities, letting them to hold their national meetings (the Romanians at Balázsfalva, the Serbians at Karlovác), in which these nationalities, incited by agitators and their politicians with egoistic taughts (for example ban Jelacic had received many proposals from Kossuth, who offered total national liberty to Croatia, and a large autonomy, but despite of this he rejected it and allied with the Habsburgs) decided to revolt against the Hungarians, with the help of the military units, which were organised in the territories in which they lived, and were composed only by them (the Austrians organised in the 18 century the border zones in military districts, in which the majority nationality composed the army), so they had an army whit which they could attack Hungary. The Serbians also received thousands of "voluntaries" (named Servians) who came from the Serbian principality. In august-september 1848 the Romanian MPs from the Hungarian parliament of Pest elaborated a nationality law, which gave large rights to the nationalities, voted by the parliamentary commisions, but unfortunately this law could not go into effect, because the Hungarian govern was disbanded by the Habsburg emperor Ferdinand V., who in September 1848 decided to finally play with open cards, and give the order of attack to the Croatian forces, than the Austrians (however the Austrian army did not entered Hungary, because the people of Viena revolted and chased him away, the Austrian armies attack only started after the pacification of Viena in the end of October). Howewer the Hungarian parliament, with a new Government led by Szemere Bertalan, formed in May 1849, made the famous nationality law in late july, which gave huge rights to the nationalities - declaring the language of the national majority which lives in a place practically the official language of that region, religious and cultural autonomy for the nationalities - (the first nationality law of the world), and also the law of the Emancipation of Jews (one of the first laws of these kinds of Europe).
Not all the minorities from Hungary were against the Hungarians. Paradoxically the Germans living in Hungary (except the Saxons from Transylvania) were allies to the Hungarians, fighting alongside with the Hungarians against the enemy armies, giving many officers and generals to the Hungarian revolutionary army. In the same way the Jews were sympathetic to the Hungarian cause, many of them fighting in the Hungarian army. The Ruthenians from north Eastern Hungary as well, all fought alongside the Hungarians. Although you write that the Slovaks were against the Hungarians, except an armed group in the lead of Hurban, composed of some few hundred of men, partially Slovaks, partially Czechs comming from Czechia (defeated and chased away by the Hungarian army very easily), the bulk of the Slovakian population fought alongside with the Hungarians, and in many battles won by the Hungarians (for example Branyiszkó in 5 february 1849), the majority of their soldiers were Slovakians. Also when the Russian army came in June 1849, the old Slovakians in the villages they entered in northern Hungary told to them: "Here in the mountains you are safe, but you will be beaten by our sons in the plains, and you will be chasen away". Also not all the Romanians were against the Hungarian cause, but only those who lived in Transylvania (about a half of the Romanian population).
And Világos means bright (light). So I do not know what did you tried to say... And Világos was not an ass kicking but the place where the Hungarian army surrendered. So it was no ass kicking there from none of the sides...
szalard Now, did you read the term Hungarisation or Maygarisation in my comment? I bet not, because I don't remember writing it, I only commented on the government being "oppressive" which it surely was. Yes, it has something to do with the change of the administrative language to Hungarian and yes, the Hungarisation wasn't really there before the Austro-Hungarian compromise, but it does not matter. I did a little bit of oversimplifying in the statement of an "oppressive against minorities" and put together the cause of the Slovak revolution and Russian invasion, which were of two completely different reasons. Slovak revolt's reason was the romanticism of Stur, Hurban and those dudes, the spreading ideas of liberty from France through the Napoleonic wars and the fact that Hungarians issued an arrest warrant on them.
The reason for the Russian invasion was an aliance with Austria and the fact that after the failed attempts of the Diet of Hungary to fight the revolts using diplomacy, a Hungarian state with no recognition of minorities was established by the former member and now the leader of a Hungarian revolt in what now was an Austrian land(after the dissolution of the Diet) in the april of 1849.
But stating that Hungarian as an administrative language was just to solidify the country and that it was not to undermine the national identity of the minorities is maybe true for the tries before in 30s and 40s, but really a bullshit in the time after the april declaration of Hungarian state in 1849 and the Austro-Hungarian compromise.
Yeah, they were crowned kings of Hungary, however, Hungary was not an autonomous kingdom and really not a sovergin country prior to 1848, certainly not part of Habsburg Empire, that entity ended in 1804 after the Imperial Recess and became the Austrian Empire. It does not matter if there was some autonomy inside the Empire, in fact, there was a huge chunk of autonomy in all of the Empires of the world throughout the history, because an Empire is not a signle entity, but rather a cultural and national union and running an empire in the past without any autonomy was impossible because of the communication problems(there was no telegraph, telephone or internet, so it took a long time when a message was transmitted from an one end to another), but the defining factors of a sovereign kingdom/empire/state/statutary entity or in just one word, a country, is its behaviour regarding international politics(and the fact that a statutary entity has a head - an emperor, pope, pharaoh, tsar, shogun, caesar, duke, doge, president, king or whatever you want to call him or sometimes her). That is why it is very hard to define an universal statutary entity during some of the periods of, for example, the Holy Roman Empire(the factor of the head/ruler is why the Habsburg kingdoms aren't called a Habsburg Empire since the 16-17th century when the dynasty ruled pretty much the whole Europe, yet they did not have a single "chosen one" to rule them all). A partial sovereignty was achieved through the March laws in 1848, but until then it was as sovereign as Brittany in France.
I say Slovaks because the group around Hurban founded the National Assembly of Slovakia and self-defined themselves as a nation and a state. And there was no battle between Hurbanites and Kosuths, there was only a "meeting", which ended in "armies" not engaging and retreat of the Slovak "army" after the promised reinforcements from Vienna failed to arrive(Slovak, my local, sources say that there was a meeting with Kosuth's men, German don't mention any, however they mention an order to leave the territory of Upper Hungary instead of resupplying which was supposedly met by a raid on Austrian supplies. It would make sense if there was a meeting, an order to leave instead of reinforcements which was met by a retreat and an angry raid. But in any case, it was really not a battle between the glorious Hungarian army and czech volunteers, it was a mess in which hungarian and pro-hungarian slovaks from a local regimental camp without a leader met an "army" consisting of mostly Myjavan and Brezovan peasants armed with axes, pitchforks, scythes and pickaxes with a support of a few hundred of moravian, german, serbian, croatian and slovak volunteers armed with guns led by an evangelic priest and it was not a real battle but rather a meeting resulting in a huge mess and the both "armies" retreating. Another slovak source mentions a "battle" between a few pro-hungarian troops and a few slovak volunteers near Brezová, however, this is not mentioned anywhere else and if it was a real battle, it would be recorded as a battle, I suppose there was just a small conflict between two rather unsizable groups of pro and against hungarian people that ended up in people getting their mouths bloody and asses kicked, and actually the volunteers won(and took an overwhelming number of 4 casualities), but no real "battle" and "shattered retreat" or "running back to czechia - which didn't even exist", the last battle that is mentioned is Muráň and Budatín, Budatín being an effort of the Austrian army with a surplus of slovak volunteers which resulted in a victory of Austrians and the laughable mess of Moháč, which was not really a battle and not really against Hungarians, but rather between pro-hungarian Slovaks and Slovak volunteers(sources say there were 100-150 volunteers and 100-200 pro-hungarians, laughable amounts) and it was a mess more than a battle - because both sides spoke slovak and nobody knew who is fighting whom - with no result, but it is from not a particularry reliable source, so the conclusion is that there was something and some dudes meddled with some other dudes with uncertain and unimportant result). The nationalist rebel factions from the other parts of the country(and by the country I mean Austria, or rather the Hungarian part of the Austria) also defined themselves as the representatives of the nation, so it is irrelevant defining that some of people were for and some against the Hungarian cause. Off course the bulk of Hungarian army was composed of lots of nationalities, because it was more or less the main hungarian army(partly the remnants of the Austrian army) and the manpower provided was of the whole Hungary, they took conscripts from their(Hungarian) lands.
That nationality law came too late and was only a reaction to tone down the uprisings(Jelačić couldn't be negotiated with, he invaded Hungary without orders from Vienna and any warning, I guess that it was just because he wanted to uphold his power and seen the Hungarian government as a threat, so they issued these laws to stop slavic people from supporting him, but it was too late, the fact that they had already made some enemies throughout the slavic minorities - the martial law - did not help) and revolutions, because in august-september 1948, the revolts were in the full effect. Remember, the Slovak revolution started in May after the delivery of The Demands of the Slovak Nation(just read the wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demands_of_the_Slovak_Nation ) to the Hungarian Diet, after which an arrest warrant was issued on him and his nationalistic group(please note that they weren't zealots, weren't crazy and power-hungry, they were priests, teachers and literary romantic authors with the Štúr being also a polititian who actually held a seat in the Hungarian Diet and even some Kosuth's ideas presented before the acceptance of the March laws were inspired by Stur's ideas presented to the diet a year ago, because they were kind of political allies and influenced each other quite heavily), which was the main cause for them to organize a revolt. He may be liberal while he was the member of the diet, he soon rather radicalised.
And, it was not Czechia, czechia is a made-up word of the 21st century, back then it was the Kingdom of Bohemia(with the same quasi-kingdom rank like Hungary).
As for the south slavic conflicts, I guess that asd... whatever his name is explanation is quite right, opportunism, oppresion based on religion and nationality and all kinds of complicated stuff.
You would have to learn the western dialect of Slovak language, not Hungarian, to learn that "világoš" means "getting beaten up"(the same as "naprdel" in czech, which means "get your ass kicked") in it ;)
Bottom line: It is overcomplicated and don't try to take a national hate into account here(for it to be explained from the global perspective it has to be simplified, but oversimplification is no good as overcomplication and you are overcomplicating). There is no hate in my post, I tried to be neutral and simplify a topic that is an issue that many books are written about and many historians study(all of them, Hungarian, Slovak, Serbian, Croatian, Romanian, ...). You seem to me that you try to enforce some nationalistic pride as some of Hungarians do. Please don't do that. Kingdoms before the 19th century were nothing to be proud about, weren't even ruled by rulers of the local nationality, the rulers rarely spoke the local language and even if they did, it was so much different "royal" dialect that no one understood them(even as late as the 1940s when the Japanese Emperor Hirohito adressed his people through a radio, no one understood him). Why mention that Hungary was a quasi-kingdom? It certainly wasn't a separate country and everybody knows that countries back then consisted of many separate autonomous entities and it has no effect on understanding of the topic..
The time has shown that maybe if the Hungarian state created in april 1849 held and the Slavic minorities joined Kosuth, maybe the history could be more positive, because the evolution after and sometimes even during the revolution was ironical, but Kosuth wasn't a saint and as no national leader back then was and the Hungarian reforms were not as liberal and accepting as they sound, even though they were maybe the most liberal laws in at least the Central-Eastern Europe back then. But that is a history, all of the revolts actually lost, leading to Bach Absolutism and the animosity between the revolutionary leaders escalated into huge Hungarian pride and Hungarisation efforts in 1870s after the Compromise of 1867 when Hungary finally got its parital sovereignty which caused a jellousness, negative nationalism(those people are the worst and were the worst. Those nationalists caused internal conflicts in Czechoslovakia before the WWII and those nationalists were and actually still are freaking nazies! - Like Ľudová Strana Naše Slovensko and Jobbik...) and animosity between the nations right now.
And yeah, I would love to see the source of that claim that they were hostile to the Russians.
And yeah, I did edit quite heavily, because I researched this topic wihle writing and found out that in some points I was wrong(like I didn't really think that Kosuth issued the warrant, but obviously was wrong and sometimes was too soft on Kosuth and Hungarians and sometimes on the others).
+Thrust vectoring Wow, you mention so many things here that it is very hard to respond.
I try to respond to some of them.
I am not overcomplicating the things, but I try only to show some issues, because this argue about Hungay being oppressive to its nationalities in 1848 is used everywhere, because, ok, partly is true, but in the other part it is overactedly shown by the Romanian or Slovakian historians, serving their countries political interests rather than the historical truth. For example when you read things about the nationality law of 1849 (mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/372.html), they say that it was made in haste, and too late, but they completely forget about the draft bill from 1848, which was not too late (mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/369.html, p. 286-288), was really close to be voted, only the disolving of the govern stopped it. Or they do not say a word about the Kossuth money (Kossuth bankó) which had also Slovak, Serbo-Croatian, Romanian and German inscription (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Kossuth_bank%C3%B3.jpg, www.szentesinfo.hu/cd/helyismeret/varostortenet/kepek/eredeti/02_08_07.jpg, back side images2-hu.gs-static.com/products/4096x4096/2016/02/07/56b70e32805e9-egy-forint-1848-kossuth-banko-i.jpg) on them (how can be a state oppressive to its nationalities, having no respect to them trying to assimilate them, when it makes multilingual money?). So they argue in a very selective mode, choose only the things which meet their purposes of showing the Hungarian state as highly nationalistic and oppressive, to explain why some of the nationalities, or some parts of them (and not all, like they affirm, again in a tendentious mode) revolted. Apart from these of course, like you say, Kossuth and the Hungarian politicians were not saints, and they wanted really, but in a very long term, an assimilation of the nationalities (saying that momentarily this is impossible, but writing many articles about this in the newspapers, probably read by the minorities leaders too, making them mistrustful towards the Hungarians), but show me a country of the 19. century which did not tried to do the same with its nationalities (to show Switzerland as a model, which could be followed by the Hungarians is wrong because in every Swiss canton the majority nation did what it wanted in its own borders, without giving any rights to the not Canton-making nationalities, like the Rheto Romanians)! So this is ridiculous to accuse the Hungarian politicians because they did not invented the protection of the minorities for the first time in the modern post 1789 world, or better sayed: they invented it, but that was "too late"... This is like accusing Columb of being stupid because he taught that he discovered India and not America... And yet, the Hungarian politicians discovered the protection of minorities, true, the law came in power a little late, but they created, in july 1849, the first minority law in the world (Laszlo Peter, Martyn C. Rady, Peter A. Sherwood: Lajos Kossuth sas word ...: papers delivered on the occasion of thebicentenary of Kossuth's birth, University of London,School of Slavonic & East European Studies, Mar. 2003, page 101)! And still everybody is accusing them being more nationalistic than the politicians in the other parts of Europe... Do not forget, in 1849 in the southern part of USA the Blacks were still slaves, or in the neighbouring countries of Hungary, in Moldova and Wallachia, the Gypsies were also slaves (so the Romanians who accuse the Hungarians of being nationalits in 1848, themselfs in that same times were having Romani slaves: 2august.eu/forgotten-history-500-years-of-roma-slavery-in-romania/)! So, in an epoch were slavery still ruled in many countries, and where, in the most developed countries Britain, France, considered exemplary to the other countries, the nationalities had 0 rights, without any education, administration in their language (Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bretons, who had lost their languages almost completely because of this, while in 1918, the majority of the nationalities of Hungary, after 50 years of so called Magyarization, still could not speak a word in Hungarian...), and treated the peoples which they colonised in Africa, America or Asia as slaves, accusing the Hungarians, who made the first nationality law of the world in 1849, issued money which had inscriptions in the languages of their nationalities, of being oppressive to their nationalities is, in my
oppinion, ridiculous! Of course, they were nationalistic, but who wasnt in those times? Who they could chose as an example for being non-nationalistic? I am not complaining that that they were nationalistic is written down (which is very good, to write all what happened), but because the fact that many historians completely forget
their pro minority actions. So the truth is presented only one-sided.
My oppinion is that not the nationalism and the Hungarian oppression played a role in the revolt and alliance of some of the nationalities with the Austrians, because they choose to revolt in the moment when the Hungarians really gave them rights (like abolition of serfdom, citizenship liberties, freedom of speech and gathering and urged the representatives of these nationalities in the Hungarian parliament to make a nationality law in Hungary), but the egoistic plans of some of their leaders of partaging Hungary, and creating national regions ruled by them. Of course these leaders of the nationalities used the memory of the social opression and serfhood (do not forget that not only Romanians or Serbians were serfs, but also a very big part of the Hungarians too, so the serfhood in Hungary or Transylvania was not nacionality-based, Hungarians being the lords and the nationalities being the serfs, or that the Hungarian Csángós of Moldavia were serfs of the Romanian boyars too) before the revolution, and the fact that before 1848, in Transylvania the Romanians had no representatives in the Diet, being not accepted as a distinct medieval nation as Hungarians, Saxons or Szeklers were (the system of priviledged nations being abolished also in 1848, as a reminiscence of the medieval period), in order to make the nationality masses to join them, and not the improving situation after 15 March 1848.
„But stating that Hungarian as an administrative language was just to solidify the country and that it was not to undermine the national identity of the minorities is maybe true for the tries before in 30s and 40s, but really a bullshit in the time after the april declaration of Hungarian state in 1849 and the Austro-Hungarian compromise.” The truth is exact the opposite, like I showed before: the real „bullshit” was before 1848, and the first steps towards the nationalities were made in 1848!
I like the way you explain it:)
Please make a video on the 4000-5000 types of potato in Ireland including details about all the different variants and strains of each individual spud. Your videos are so insightful and this is a topic we are very passionate about. It is coming up in an exam soon and I want to be able to reference 10+ types of potato and it’s details (inc root growth and popularity and taste) your voice makes me not want to cease to live. Love hetty and Martha
Why on Earth would any teacher give a test on types of potatoes? Unless it's for a bio or agriculture class? If it's for history, that teacher should be fired. All you need to know is that both the Europeans and Americans moved from multi-strain agriculture to one-crop agriculture because it was cheaper. This is why the potato blight was so awful for Ireland and others in Europe. They used only one type of potato so when it showed up from North America with that fungus on it, the unseasonably cool weather made it so much worse. Had the West not been trying to cut corners with their choice of crops, this would not have gone down the way it did.
Great job with all of your videos Tom we watch you in our history class to prepare for our GCSEs (20th century Europe) and you've really got me interested in history so thanks and keep up the good work.
Nice Tom keep it up.
Hi can you please help me relate the revolutions of 1848 to foreign policy/international relations?
Join us! A podcast on the life of Communist Union General August Willich with the author of the only biography ever written about this incredible figure! A german revolutionary of 1848 who tried to seduce Karl Marxs wife to the point where a duel ensued, he immigrated to America and led entire regiments of germans into the jaws of Dixie while playing the revolutionary anthem of France! He kicked confederate ass all the way to Georgia, viewing the Civil war as strictly about slavery and as a challenge to capitalism! Please join us in celebration of this fantastic hero of our buried hidden history
th-cam.com/video/poiUFsYhxBg/w-d-xo.html
We cover all this from an international perspective. The Civil War was an international conflict and so were the rebellions of 1848. A slew of 1848ers like willich ended up as leaders in the union army
So glad these exist... I'm behind in AP world history stuff and this makes stuff quick unlike reading a textbook
+Clarinet Catato So glad I can help!
5:00 I can't stop laughing at the way you criticize the guy in the painting for falling on the ground crying. That's nothing to teach CHILDREN to be a poor sport. LOLOL
I watch your videos before every AP euro test I have and they help me so much, thank you!!
thank you for helping me making a project
Metternich did return but he only played minor roles after the Revolution.
great video fellow historian :D
3:57 BUT...then enter the Russians :D
This is helpful but his accent is irritating
ikr
I'm loving the rocky reference
You seem like the kind of guy who would go into the streets and shout that gays are wrong. Nohomo though
you'd have that experience to know.
He thinks he is smart lol
''And you think you are smart by pointing that out.'' Don't be that guy, that's too easy. People are more complex than your bland, superficial and intuitive cynicism could ever comprehend.
Question yourself before you question others.
please o lord enlighten us instead of commenting three times that you dont like the vid lmao
He has no idea what he is talking about
Thanks!
Do not insult our king Tom Richey
and thats why he got 200k subs?
Prove to me that you're smarter