Make no mistake - this is a fine, painstakingly detailed book. It's apparent problem is that it's a 70% scholarly opus and only 30% general audience non-fiction. Hence, low ratings from incensed public, tired by its density and thickness.

A "lively, panoramic" history of a revolutionary year (New York Times)
In 1848, a violent storm of revolutions ripped through Europe. The torrent all but swept away the conservative order that had kept peace on the continent since Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815 -- but which in many countries had also suppressed dreams of national freedom. Political events so dramatic had not been seen in Europe since the French Revolution, and they would not be witnessed again until 1989, with the revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In 1848, historian Mike Rapport examines the roots of the ferment and then, with breathtaking pace, chronicles the explosive spread of violence across Europe. A vivid narrative of a complex chain of interconnected revolutions, 1848 tells the exhilarating story of Europe's violent "Spring of Nations" and traces its reverberations to the present day.

See my review at: https://gregshistoryblog.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-revolutions-of-1848.html ( )

A cogent and clear recounting of a vital but all-too-forgotten period (in America, at least) in Europe's history, the 1848 wave of European revolutions when the people momentarily overthrew a dozen monarchs, only to be crushed again in a subsequent wave of counter-revolutions. The tale could easily have been lost among the dozens of names in different languages, but Rapport keeps a firm grasp on his storyline. His thesis is also relatively clear, with appropriate nuance: the revolutions succeeded because of genuine discontent with European governments that was channelled by a strong alliance of liberals and radicals — and then failed when that alliance fell apart and was unable to contend with the forces of reaction. Vital for understanding later events, such as the recent Arab Spring. ( )

Very well done general history of the revolutions of 1848 and the counter-revolutions of 1849 that occurred in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Transylvania and various other outposts of the Hapsburg Empire. Rapport chronicles all the major events, and the leading actors treating each country or aspiring country in succession in each chapter. I was a little taken aback to learn that for a time Pope Pius IX was regarded as the focus of liberal reformers in favor of Italian unification. Ultimately, he could not make war upon the Catholic Emperor of Austria and yielded this role to Charles Albert of Piedmont. Pius was forced to abandon Rome disguised as a common priest and went into exile in Gaeta until after the French army at he direction of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte defeated Roman republican forces and restored the pope's authority in the Papal States.

Also worth noting among the cast was one Richard Wagner, who played a role in the government of revolutionary Saxony following the flight of its king into exile. Wagner at one point climbed to a church steeple where he rang the bells to alert the revolutionaries and performed reconnaissance on the Prussian forces looking to suppress the insurrection.

Ultimately, the revolutions foundered due to a great extent the inability of the liberal constitutionalists to achieve a critical mass significant enough to resist the more radical revolutionary impulses of the left and the traditionalist segments of society who feared for the wholesale destruction of the existing social order. What was lacking is best summed by the author in his concluding chapter.
"Most modern democracies cope with the social question because it is debated within a constitutional framework on which are parties are (more or less) agreed and which protect democratic freedoms." This lack of consensus and the inability to establish and live within the constraints of a constitutional framework ultimately influenced many of the revolutionaries of 1848 to side with their erstwhile conservative opposition. ( )

I sought out this book after the events now being called the "Arab Spring" really got rolling. I was looking to see if the intuition that the events unfolding in North Africa and the Middle East were really comparable across time and space. The term sui generis comes to mind whenever such comparisons are attempted, and while it's fair to acknowledge that the popular uprisings happening in our time arise from conditions and motivations native to the context of Arab/Islamic culture and history, those distinctions that make the two phenomena different are themselves enlightening. As Mark Twain said, "History does not repeat itself, but is does rhyme."

Complaints can certainly be marshaled against the structure and character of this treatment of history. Any reading of a book is accompanied by comparisons to other books that it might have been had the author placed different emphasis. The content is intimidatingly broad and requires an effort to keep straight the various threads across the several concurrent revolutions. So saying, I think that Rapport's treatment is honest and shows integrity in dealing with the material. To have placed particular emphasis in any one theater of events while glossing over some aspects would have done an injustice to the very things that make this year of history fascinating. All of this happened at once, and no piece of it was for any reason more valid or important unless from a myopic perspective that generally eschews regions we think of as backwaters of European civilization. I see complaints of a lack of background explanation, but a moment's reflection on what that would entail and how much weight and density it would add to the total work should cause a retraction of that desire. This book deals with a certain set of events. Any information not contained therein is available elsewhere. If the reader is spurred to learn more, that's great. If it requires concerted effort to comprehend the complexity it is possible that it may be because the events themselves are complex and any movement to reduce complexity would be dishonest.

Back to the comparison with the Arab Spring, I certainly don't appreciate the news media's sound-bite-style journalism that virtually ignores events in any countries other than Egypt and Syria. No doubt they do so because they have a low opinion of our ability to process complexity and therefore serve-up a condensed version. I can't help thinking that there are just some times when an endeavor to actually grapple with complexity is actually the only way to get a visceral sense of that complexity. Who ever said the reading of a history book should be a passive experience? I agree it's not a beach read, and you may have to pay attention to it and occasionally come to grips with the fact that there are important historical figures you've never heard of whose context in a larger historical picture may have to be sought out elsewhere. So be it.

Finally, the comparisons to the revolutions from Algeria to Bahrain are--I think--elucidating. To see how the retrenchment of those empowered can stubbornly resist the conflicting idealisms of fracturing progressive movements mirrors in many respects the events we've seen over the last couple years. Two steps forward, one step back is perhaps the rhyme running through a world history of progressiveness.

This is what you might call a “general interest” history of the events that occurred in Europe in 1848. What started in Sicily quickly spread all over Europe: to France, Germany, Austria, the Italian states, Demark, Wallachia, Poland, and several other places. While almost no structural or political change actually took place as a result of these revolutions and therefore they are usually considered somewhat of a failure, it is often thought to be the historical location of the birth pangs of several European nationalisms.

And while some of the first European nationalists might be located here, they also may have been responsible for tearing the revolutions apart along ethnic and cultural lines, as Rapport also discusses. Revolutionaries had to build functional constitutions, often in the faces of monarchs who couldn’t be bothered with them, and avoid radical sectarianism – all in the name of getting something accomplished politically. Unfortunately because of all the countries and people that were involved, the book at times can seem like a rush to mention all of the important conflicts, places, and dates. Because the revolutionary dynamic is largely similar any place that Rapport is discussing, the conflicts run together. I also set this down several times for a few weeks on end, which couldn’t have helped with the reading comprehension and keeping things straight narratively.

Rapport writes well enough, but he doesn’t really make it easy, or overly readable, or enjoyable, like he perhaps could have. To be honest, the book is hay-dry. I was going to say that the information was “well-presented,” but I don’t even know what that means in a book of history if it’s not engaging and reader-friendly. Unfortunately, as much as I learned, it’s neither one of those things. But I’ve always been one of those people that can’t just put a book down, even if I don’t like it at all. I really should try to fix that.

If anyone knows a better recounting of the 1848 revolutions, please feel free to share. ( )

This book is a stew. It mixes a half-dozen revolutions and stirs the pot. It is an overview of the revolutions and counter-revolutions of 1848. It is a tough subject, granted, but more framing would have been nice. Rapport makes his main points well, the economic and political reasons for the revolutions, the fractionalism and sometimes opposing goals of the moderates and radicals and the circumstances that finally allowed their conservative opponents to overwhelm the revolutionaries.

As other reviewers have commented Rapport takes in a lot of territory in a fairly short book. The timeline bounces back and forth. And finally the protagonists pop in and out with little to identify them. He assumed more knowledge of mid 19th century politicians than I have, especially those in Central Europe. A timeline and more biographical information would have been good.

That said, Rapport writes well and clearly. He explains the political happenings in a clear, straightforward manner. The book is worth reading. ( )

A broad overview of the revolutions of 1848. Rapport takes in the whole of Europe, not only the usual suspects of Italy, Austria, Hungary, France and Germany, but also Scandinavia, the Low Countries and even England. This forms a part of the weakness of the book. Inevitably, some choices have to be made. Italy is dealt with in depth, while Frankfurt doesn't receive a lot of attention. The main problem, however, is a lack of context. Reactionaries and revolutionaries pop in and out of the narrative with bewildering speed, events happen in several places at once.... Even if you are reasonably familiar with the politics of mid 19C Europe, you sometimes feel lost. The book would have been a lot better with a set a biographical sketches of the main protagonists, and a timeline of what happened when and where.

That being said, it gives a good overview of the events, the reasons why the revolution failed, and the legacy of 1848. ( )

While the book jacket compares the widespread revolutions of 1848 to those of 1989, the book itself reveals that the upheaval of 1848 led mainly (and quickly) to counter-revolution and conservative retrenchment. Thus, the subject of the book is largely one of anti-climax.

Revolutions of varying degrees swept across much of Europe, including France, Italy, Germany, Prussia, Austria, and Hungary. The movements tended to be nationalist, liberal, and democratic - sometimes republican, in the sense of giving the heave-ho to the reigning monarch. Nationalist, liberal, and democratic values did not necessarily cohere.

The movements experienced exciting successes; exciting but short-lived. Within the year most of the democratic and liberal advances were been swept away by counter-revolutions that restored power to conservative monarchs in nearly every country. Nationalism fared somewhat better. The revolutions arguably did further the unification of Germany and Italy in the coming decades.

The broad scope of Rapport's book, albeit contained within one year, presents a formidable challenge to any writer. Nineteenth century Europe presents the reader with bewildering complexity. Bear in mind that Italy and Germany did not exist in the modern sense, but rather consisted of a plethora of independent or quasi-independent entities. Hungary was struggling for independence from - or at least within - the Habsburg Empire. Each `country' had its own autonomous movements with its own leaders. Complexities multiply. Thus, I think it is not too harsh to say that Rapport falls short of rendering a structured and clear history.

Rapport's beginning is strong, but he soon begins to plod through each country's revolt seriatim; first France, then Germany, Hungary, and Italy. The same process is repeated through each six chapters. He brutally overuses the familiar phrasing "the latter" and "the former", which is annoying and confusing; why not just use the name of the person or place again? With dozens of names and places, repeating them would have been helpful.

Until the brief conclusion, Rapport does not provide context or structure. The reader's head spins with mostly unfamiliar names and places and is soon buried under a mountain of detail. Had Rapport woven the larger perspective one finds in the Conclusion into the main narrative, he would have produced a far more elucidating book. ( )

Disorganized? Turgid? Lacking in something . . . . ( )

Let's see how I do with reading a book without pictures or conversations.

Not so well. This is one of the longest 400-page books I have ever read. It turns out that I am not 400 pages worth of interested in this topic. No fault of author or book, only mine.