EPTThe nineteenth century produced a phenomenon unheard of in the annals of Western civilization, namely a hundred years' peace - 1815-1914. Apart from the Crimean War - a more or less colonial event - England, France, Prussia, Austria, Italy, and Russia were engaged in war among each other for only eighteen months. A computation of comparable figures for the two preceding centuries gives an average of sixty to seventy years of major wars in each. But even the fiercest of nineteenth-century conflagrations, the Franco-Prussian War of 1970-71, ended after less than a year's duration with the defeated nation being able to pay over an unheard-of sum as an indemnity without any disturbance of the currencies involved.
Occupy Wall Street - Page 211
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
The nineteenth century produced a phenomenon unheard of in the annals of Western civilization, namely a hundred years' peace - 1815-1914. Apart from the Crimean War - a more or less colonial event - England, France, Prussia, Austria, Italy, and Russia were engaged in war among each other for only eighteen months. A computation of comparable figures for the two preceding centuries gives an average of sixty to seventy years of major wars in each. But even the fiercest of nineteenth-century conflagrations, the Franco-Prussian War of 1970-71, ended after less than a year's duration with the defeated nation being able to pay over an unheard-of sum as an indemnity without any disturbance of the currencies involved. | ||
|
Bandino
United States342 Posts
On March 05 2013 13:49 sam!zdat wrote: yeah, that's why it was a disaster, that's doesn't explain why it started and what led to it. "people are stupid" does not explain why a civilization which had enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity for nearly a century suddenly exploded into barbarous warfare. (edit: they certainly did not "simply think it was a good idea." they had no idea what was happening to them. nobody wanted to go to war, it happened and the diplomats didn't have any clue what was going on.) read it. it's good: ![[image loading]](http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100460077/great-transformation-karl-polanyi-paperback-cover-art.jpg) Sam while I generally just sit here and lurk the general thread, I must say that Europe definitely did not experience a unprecedented period of peace and prosperity for nearly a century before World War One. The Balkan area was rife with violence (Look at the two Balkan Wars prior to WW1). Also the Franco-Prussian war (which was in the second half of the 19th century) was in my opinion a foreshadowing of what was to come, imperial powers vying for influence in the world. Also the treaty of Frankfurt caused France to resent Germany because of their occupation of Alsace. So I find your comment that "nobody" wanted to go to war quite incorrect. I feel it was actually the opposite, the countries were looking to fight, they just needed the right opportunity. I also wonder how you can call the 19th century a period of peace. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: I mean, idk man, that's what Polanyi says. Some squabbling over territory is part of the balance-of-power system, that's not the point. The point is that international trade and the monetary system was stable during this period. Anybody with a history degree wanna tell me Polanyi's wrong and give me a text, I'd be grateful. | ||
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:14 sam!zdat wrote: The Powers were at peace. Except when Britain and France were at war with Russia, France at war with Austria (which at this point was the strongest central European power), Germany imploding into all out war as Prussia challenged Austria and France and the new Germany going to war. But if we exclude the fact that of the four big European states (Britain, France, Russia, Germany (led first by Austria, then by Prussia) there were wars between two of them with another, one of them with another, one of them with another again and a massive upheaval in one of them then yeah, it was at peace (also we're excluding the first 15 years). | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: I don't care about napoleon, i'm talking after that. obviously there's napoleon edit: what's a book I can read about all this | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:16 sam!zdat wrote: So why does Polanyi say that? Maybe he's a massively anglocentric historian and just treats any time in which Englishmen aren't actively engaged on the continent (if we exclude Crimea) as peace. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:19 sam!zdat wrote: edit: what's a book I can read about all this No offence but pretty much a middle school history textbook. All we've done is listed wars that happened in the 19th Century. It's just there are quite a few of them. Wikipedia can tell you that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Unification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_question Continued throughout the 19th C as a cause of conflict including the Crimean War between three great powers (also left Austria isolated internationally) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War This was the first European war in which the Prussian conscript army equipped with modern rifles was deployed using modern industrial infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Prussian_War Near half a million dead and wounded as France and Germany go to war. And these are just the great power wars. As has been mentioned, the entire Balkans was in flames as Turkey decayed. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I think the point is that the amount of time that Powers were at war was relatively small (as in the quote). So sure there were wars, but the economic system was mostly stable throughout this period and the durations of the wars were short. We have to keep in mind we're talking about fucking Europe here. Just naming some wars is nothing, Europe's a bunch of barbarians. They're ALWAYS at war. I think the point is that the 19th century was pretty peaceful, all told. Like the quote says. edit: well, if you have a recommendation for a scholarly text, I'd appreciate it, otherwise I'm just going to keep on believing Polanyi. edit: I think you might be projecting backwards with your knowledge of what ends up happening. the fracture lines are always apparent from after the break. Nobody then saw it that way - they thought things were super peaceful. On March 05 2013 14:23 KwarK wrote: All we've done is listed wars that happened in the 19th Century. yes, that's the problem. all you've done is list wars. you haven't thought about the overall character of the period. This, kids, is why you can't get an education from wikipedia. On March 05 2013 14:23 KwarK wrote: the entire Balkans was in flames as Turkey decayed. who cares? that's Turkey and the Balkans. Turkey and the Balkans are periphery... edit: anybody who actually knows about it wanna chime in? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
What Polanyi wrote is simply not historically true. I can't explain why he seems to think 19th C Europe was peaceful but you don't get to simply dismiss the facts. The reason a basic history textbook or even wikipedia works to disprove his theory is because we're not looking for historical analysis, we're looking at the claim "it was peaceful" and then at the facts "there were a load of big wars". | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:35 sam!zdat wrote: How long did they spend fighting though? Are you serious? You must be trolling, surely. You don't get to declare a period that was full of wars peaceful because the wars were, in general, decided quickly in favour of one side, if we exclude the Crimean which lasted 3 years and Italian Unification which was an ongoing struggle for 30 years. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: I didn't get my education from wikipedia, I've had to write a fair bit on the unifications in Europe. The point is that whatever you got your education from is inferior to wikipedia because you lacked even a basic awareness of the period. You read a book that characterised it as peaceful and were baffled to learn that France and Germany went to war in 1870. I know about the Franco-Prussian war... On March 05 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Are you serious? You must be trolling, surely. No! that's the entire point. How long did they spend fighting? how much of the period was taken up with Powers fighting and disrupting trade? A few quick wars every once in a while is positively bucolic by european standards. give me a scholarly text or you're no use to me. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:38 sam!zdat wrote: give me a scholarly text or you're no use to me. I could name a few but you're missing the point. The point is that at this point a scholarly source is way above your level. You don't need a scholarly source to disprove the premise that Europe was at peace when the many, many wars are a matter of public record. Wikipedia will do. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:43 KwarK wrote: The point is that at this point a scholarly source is way above your level. :| | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On March 05 2013 14:42 sam!zdat wrote: Because the Great War was a total dissolution of Europe's social, political, and economic landscape. The other things weren't. They were just part of the game. And yet the political landscape of Europe in 1930 was closer to that of 1914 than 1914 was to 1840. The Great War changed far, far less than the unification period which fundamentally changed the balance of power in Europe with the creation of the new German superpower. | ||
| ||
