We saw how European dictators / monarchs tried to re-establish the Old Order with the Congress of Vienna in 1816 and fix the problems that Napoleon had created (by overthrowing the old stodgy system that 
wouldn't change - though the ironic thing was that Napoleon (painting at the left) had become an Emperor himself and put all of the power of the French government in his own hands).
wouldn't change - though the ironic thing was that Napoleon (painting at the left) had become an Emperor himself and put all of the power of the French government in his own hands). My questions for you:
If you were a monarch of old Europe at this time (mid 19th Century) and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, which of the following would you do and why?
1. Would you crush these revolts in your empire so as to not let them not occur again?
2. Would you listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of your power or empire's resources?
3. Would you completely agree to all of the revolutionaries' requests and allow their region to become semi-independent?
4. Would you examine the geography of the rebellious region and let them go if they weren't important or keep them if they were but let them have some form of liberties to make them happy (think Bismarck and realpolitik)?
Pick one of the four options and explain why you chose your option.
150 words minimum, due Tuesday, January 5th.
39 comments:
Maddie Perfitt
1/2/10
1st hour
Blog #9
If I were a European monarch, I would understand the rebels need and reason for ter revolts. It only makes sense for them to act that when when other countries have done so sucessfully. Therefore I would choose option the option to listen to the rebels complaints and do what I could to make them happy. A monarch has no power unless the people give him respect. If I were to try to crush the revolts, people would only fear me and would want to revolt against my overcontrolling power. Making a majority if the people happy would gain their respect towards me without loosing too much power. Completely giving in to all the rebels requests would make me almost powerless, and wouldn't quiet the crowd. If anything, it would make anyone think it was okay to start the revolts up again. The job of the monarcs is to control the people and keep them happy. I think the way I'd choose to go is the best way to succeed in both areas.
If I was a monarch of Europe in the 1900’s, and revolution was spreading, I’d go with option 2, listen to their demands, and use the ones that didn’t take too much power or resources away from the government. I’d do this because sometimes people need a stable government to institute reforms. When the French Revolution took place, and the entire monarchy was thrown out, France went through years without a government that the people could agree on. Also, if you agree to too many ideas, resources get taken away from other things to fund revolutionary ideas. This could make your empire weak to other nations. Allowing them freedom to revolutionize while keeping power lets the people respect you, and other nations see you as being powerful enough to control your subjects so that during revolution, you’re not taken out of power. This option benefits both parties. Monarchs get to keep most of their luxury life, and the revolutionaries get the reformed government and social structure they want.
Larry Geist
3rd Hour
IF i was a monarch of old Europe at this time, and the Revolutions were flaring up, i would do as option 2 says, i would listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power or empire's resources. I would do this because in this way, id be listening to the revolutionaries and not use up too much of my power or the empires resources. If i didnt listen any of the revolutionaries they could possibly overthrow me or even get into civil wars. If this happened it wouldve been better if there was no empire at all. But if i do as option 3 says, revolutionaries would be happy and hopefully everything will be peaceful and everyone can get along. If i had gone with option 1, if i had crushed the revolts in my empire, the people would just get madder and might result in war. i wouldn't want that to happen. This is why i chose option 2 if I was to be a monarch in Europe at this time.
Jithmi D:
Laura S
3rd Hour
4. I chose this option because I think that some geographical locations have more significance than others. Examples may include abundance of natural resources such as coal, oil, gold, and water, being close to other locations, and showing more geographical importance than others. I believe that if a ruler has the ability to show more liberties to other people than others, the people will have more independence and happier by having freedom.
As a ruler, I would decide which places would be independent and how the natural resources would be divided. This would allow the people to think that certain places have more independence than others. Therefore, I would decide which countries are significant and which ones were not and see what liberties could make my country and other locations pleased with that idea.
Some of the liberties that would help make the people happy are the right to own their own land, right to own their own home, and the ability to vote. This would allow people to have limited freedoms and still allow the ruler to have control.
In summary, if you allow people independence and limited freedoms, you still can be able to have control.
If was a monarch in the mid 19th century and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up I would choose to completely agree to all of the revolutionaries requests and allow them to become semi-independent. The reason is because empires do not last forever. In my opinion one person can't rule an entire kingdom by them self. It takes many different people talking and working together. Another reason is you need people to have some independence because when they are immediately presented with it they might not know what to do with their new freedom. They could start doing anything they desire and become out of control. That is the reason why I chose to agree to let the citizens become semi-independent so they have some freedom and do not go crazy when they are presented with full freedom. Because when they are presented with full independence and they have never had that before they would all go crazy.
Elliott Wolf
1st hour
If I was a monarch of old Europe at the time of the Revolutions of 1848 and the mid 19th Century, I would listen to the revolutionaries’ demands and use only the ones that didn’t demand too much of my power or empire’s resources. The first reason I would do this is that I get to stay in power, but only loose a tiny bit of it, instead of all of it and drop down from my position. The second reason is that I will keep the revolutionaries somewhat happy for giving them part of what they want. Also, this might keep the revolutionaries from trying to revolt against me and kick me out of my position. I will not let them have natural rights because the revolutionaries will become too free and they might start to not listen to me. Also, I will not become a democracy because I will have to do what the citizens of my country want.
Nicholas Kizy 1st Hour
Andrea Kelly
3rd hour
I chose number one because if I were to agree to even the smallest of demands from somewhere in my empire, that would give other regions a little bit of hope that they can accomplish whatever they are revolting about. It would insure that I stayed in full power on top. There would probably be a lot of people trying to start some sort of revolution and by crushing all that emerge; I would institute a little fear in all of the rising revolutionaries. This would calm present revolutionaries down and hopefully keep future ones from happening, because they would understand that we were no nonsense and extremely strict on what was and was not acceptable. I would protect the faithful citizens’ safety and loyalty by doing so as well.
During the mid nineteenth century there were kings, queens, knights, and jesters; a place where most fairy tales occur. There have been a lot of out breaks in rebellion and the rulers had many different responses to what happened. If I were to have been a monarch during that time period I would have most likely listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power or empire's resources. I would do this because first off listening to the demands of the people in my empire they would be less likely to rebel again in the future and trust me more. At the same time I wouldn’t have to fulfill all of the demands made by the crazy democracy hungry radicals of the times. I would still have a firm grasp on the economy and people. Also listening to their ideas might help my reign so that I would have a long lasting and thriving empire; and when I pass on my ancestors would be able to continue my reign without fear of being overthrown.
Lauren Johnson
World History 1st hour
Autumne Parker
1st hour
1/3/10
If I were a monarch of Old Europe in the mid 19th Century and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would completely agree to all of the revolutionaries' requests and allow their region to become semi-independent. I would do that so the people would get what they wanted and they would be content. In order for a country to be prosperous, the people must be satisfied. If revolutions sparked up, I would immediately figure out the issues, and solve them so there would be no riots or revolts. The citizens that were revolting would get their own region to control by themselves, but it would be under semi-rule of the region I would be ruling. If the self-governed region became prosperous, then I could possibly adopt some of the democratic ways into my own region, which could possibly reunite the two regions. That way, all the citizens would be happy and the country would have no social or political issues.
I believe that everyone has their own rights to religion. I would definitely allow everyone to become semi-independent because that is what is right. As long as no one disobeyed me and remained civilized I would be alright with that. On the other hand, I would not agree with all requests. Of course I would have to draw the line at one point so no one would try to gain too much power. But I would make it so everyone had their freedom. I chose this question because if I were in charge of a country I would want everyone to have their religious freedoms.
Caileigh Papp 3rd period
1-3-10_______Sunday
If I was an Old European monarch in the mid nineteenth century, and my people were revolting against me causing revolutions, I would be forced to make a choice and react to my people. If i were to have a choice, I would choose option two. Option two states that I should listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power or empire's resources. I believe this is the best option because it benefits my people and myself. If i picked option 1, I would be completely going against my people. This would just cause problems. They would be very angry with me and possibly overthrow me. If I picked option 3, I would just be doing what my people tell me to do. As I am the King, I must be responsible and make executive decisions. Since I’m a monarch, I can’t just let the people rule. Lastly, I would not pick option 4 because of two reasons. First, no monarch/king wants to give up land. You want to gain land and expand your power, not decrease it. Second, If i chose option four, I would have to do the same for everyone else who wishes to revolt againt me. It would be like a domino effect. To conclude, I would choose option 2. It would show I am still the king and have control over my people, which would benefit me. But it would also make the people happy. I would humor them by listening to the demands that didn’t ask for too much of my power.
-Brett Schwartz-
-1st Hour-
Harrison Brode
3rd hour
If I was a monarch of old Europe in the 19th century, I would completely agree to all of the revolutionaries requests and allow their region to become semi-independent because if I would not allow this, the revolutions would keep fighting and this fighting would cause a population and economic decrease due to the loss of people and the clothes, weapons, and equipment that the soldiers need. Also if I was the monarch at this time, I would want to make peace with everyone I meet, this way I would develop close relationships with these people and we could help each other out. For example, if I was the king of France and made peace with the leader of Russia, we could share resources, trade, and even help each other out in times of need, for example war or a depression. That is why I would completely agree with all of the revolutionary requests.
#2-I would listen to the revolutionaries’ demands and use the ones that didn’t demand to much of my power. I would do so because then the people of the region would not have more power than me. Also they would not get access to the empires resources so that I could keep them under my rule with threats of taking the resources away. This way the region would remain happy and not try to over through me and take the empire. With them happy I could rule for a longer time.
Dylon Tyldesley 1st hour U.S History
Emily Honet
1st hour
If I were a monarch of old Europe at the time of the Revolutions of 1848, I would probably listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much power or resources. I would choose this way because it seems like the solution where everyone can be positively helped. The monarch would have to give in to some demands but at the same time, this could help prevent future revolts because the revolutionaries are getting their wants and demands approved. This method is also a non violent way of giving the people what they want, but also limiting their power so the frequency of revolts decreases. The only problem with this choice is that the monarch has to make it balanced. If he/she agrees to a lot of the revolutionaries' demands, then they will keep making more demands and ask for more, which in a way will weaken the monarch and increase the power of the people. In order to make this method work, the monarch has to really make sure that the demands are reasonable and truly worth allowing so that it doesn't seem like the monarch is "giving in" and becoming weaker.
If I were a monarch of old Europe during the mid 19th Century and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would chose option two and listen to the revolutionaries’ demands but use only the ones that didn’t demand too much of my power and the empires resources. I would choose this because it would give the revolutionaries’ a chance to speak their minds and know that I am there to listen and maybe use the demand. By doing this, I would be able to keep my power and the resources of the empire. If I listened and did everything the revolutionaries’ wanted, then I would most likely have nothing left. This would also prevent me from losing my position and much respect. Another reason I would do this is because although it shouldn’t be like this, I know I would get more revolutionaries’ to like me. This would really help if I ever made a bad decision, at least I’d have another chance.
Nona Campbell
Hour 3
David Bellefleur
If I was the king or dictator or any kind of leader of France, and my people were revolting against me, i would choose number 2. Since the uprising people obviously don't like how I am running the country or empire, there is something I need to change. But it would still be important to me to have my power. A king without power is no more powerful than its people so like in any governmental system, i would want to be in charge. Though making the changes to make the people happy, I would make sure i didn't make changes to large to maintain my role. I would also listen to the revolutionaries demands in accordance to my empire's power and resource. If the demands put my country into a famine for example, i would have to think ahead and try to reason with the revolutionaries to come to a settlement.
If I were an old European monarch and revolutions were beginning to appear I would listen to some of the revolutionaries’ demands because trying to fight the revolutions would just anger the people causing more new revolutions to appear. If I was to listen to all the revolutionaries, however, then it’s quite possible that I would be overthrown and lose my throne and the country would be leaderless until order is reestablished. I would not listen to revolutionaries who’s ideas require too much of the countries power, because if a revolutionary becomes to powerful he may decide to overthrow a king or queen and even appoint himself leader. I would also not listen to revolutionaries who’s ideas require too much of the countries recourses because those recourses are better used to fund the military, construction, education or other government funded activities needed to keep the country and people in it as safe and productive as possible.
Jeremy Berkowitz, 3rd hour
If I were a monarch of old Europe during the mid 19th Century and there were revolts sprouting up around me, I would crush the revolts so as to not let them ever again occur. If I were a king, I would not risk losing my power, I would do everything I can to keep the current system of government exactly the same so that I could keep my power. If a revolt ever was being planned in my kingdom, I would do everything possible to dissolve the rebels and imprison them to not only keep a revolt from happening, but also to crush the revolutionary mood from my kingdom.
Jacob Seid
personally, i think that i would go with option number two. If i were a European monarch in the 1900s, i would try to do my absolute best to provide for our country Listening to the demands which do not demand a lot of power from me seems to be very easy and I would not have to give up my empires valued resources. Not only would it be easy for me, but it would keep the government simpler. It also seems that listening to the revolutionaries will keep the pressure down. I would not be looking to cause issues. These issues lead to wars. I think that with these ways, the time and resources that we save can be beneficial to my empire. I think this empire needs to be under strict control. Unlike number three’s semi-independent empire, which allows people to have much say in the government and may lead to chaos, a leader who does not crave power, and is relatively level headed is needed. I think these ways will have a great affect on our government and empire.
Pearce Vance
I chose number 1
I would crush the revolts and not let them occur again because if you crush and their sprits they won’t want to revolt again. And they wont have the soldiers to support another revolt. But there is one problem with doing this, they wont want to be under your rule and with stop producing metals for weapons and maybe the farmers would stop producing food to supply your soldiers. And they could just keep having revolt after revolt and never quit until they achieve what they want. And you would lose a lot of power and eventually they would weaken you enough to where someone else can take your superpower down.
Emily A.
1st Period
2. If I held all of the power and was in a situation where revolutionaries were demanding power and control over specific things I would assess their requests and pick the demands that would benefit the largest amount of people. Another factor I would look at when choosing what to give them control over is how significant it is to the government’s function. It would be best to grant them power over something that would not permanently harm the government’s daily functioning if mismanaged. Another aspect I would consider when decide which demands to meet would be the strain on the government’s resources. For instance, if I were to put them in charge of the navy they could choose to build all new ships and bankrupt our government. It is important when you are in charge of a government to act responsibly on the behalf of all of the people, their well being and the well being of the government are intertwined.
Lizzie Davidson
3rd Hour
If I was a monarch of old Europe during the mid 19th century and the revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would listen to the revolutionaries demands and use only the ones that didn’t demand too much power or empire’s resources. I think that is the safest solution because if I gave up all power at once, things could get out of hand. If I slowly use their ideas a few at a time, it could eventually make a stable government. I think this would work better to still listen to their demands but not risk changing to fast.
If I was part of a monarchy I would listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power or empire's resources. This way they were happy but had no real big rights and I still had full control over anything. This would also keep them calm for a long time. Then when/if it happened again I would do the same thing.
Drew White
3rd hour
If I was a monarch of old Europe and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would allow the revolutionaries region to become semi-independent, and would agree to SOME of their requests. I would do this because I want them to be content and have their independence (so they stop revolting and causing chaos), but if I were to give them everything they wanted, we might lose too many of our empire’s resources, and they might start expecting more freedom and independence. If I don't give them what they want, they will revolt again. But, If I were to give them some of their requests (ones that don't use too many of our resources and one that gives them just enough freedom and independence), we would both be content, they would have their independence, we would still have enough resources, and there would be peace between us both.
-Reanna Kathawa,3rd hour
Karen De la Rosa
3rd hour
If I were a European monarch, I would listen to some of the most of the revolutionaries’ demands and use the ones that didn't waste the lands resources, or too much of my power because he need the resources to be able to live, and have enough to trade and gain more money and allies that might helps us at war. I don’t want to use all the power because then it be kind of wasting it when we can use it in more important things like defending the land, or helping another country who is at war. I would listen to the demands that are the most reasonable and that could help the land in a way that almost everyone would agree with it and think that it’s fair. I would try to help as much as possible with the power and resources even thought it might not help all, and the ones that don’t agree with the demands chosen, can come up with an idea so everyone could agree and that it be easy to please them.
If I was a monarch of old Europe during the mid 19th century while the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would listen to the revolutionaries’ demands but only use the ones that didn’t demand too much of my power or my empires resources. This way, the people are satisfied and I get to keep most of my power. Allowing my empire to revolutionize while I still keep most of the power makes us powerful in the eyes of other countries. If I crushed all revolutionary ideas (option one), people would form large revolts and I would risk being overthrown. I would not completely agree to all the revolutionaries’ requests (option three) because I am the ruler and I need to show that I am mainly in power, not my people. I would not let rebellious regions go if they weren’t important (option four) because that would only make my empire weaker, as I would pretty much be giving up land. Overall, option two is the smartest decision.
Austin Lessnau
1st Hour
2. I would listen to the revolutionaries’ demands and try to help, but using as little resources to help them. Barely helping to the point where the revolutionaries were satisfied, so resources aren’t wasted. All of it would be worth it because there wouldn’t be anymore revolts because they’ll be content with what they have won. If they revolt again then force would be needed because they won’t stop till they get everything they want. Saving most of the resources for a war is better than using it on a minor revolution. If there is too much violence at the beginning then there’s a better chance of it blowing up into a much larger revolution, which will end in a large loss of lives on both sides. If people start to revolt, then all the people making the rules should fix what they have done because that’s what is starting the revolutions
-Eric Chan
If I were a monarch in Europe in the mid 19th century and all the revolutions were taking place I would probably listen to what all the revolutionaries had to say and make decisions that would be reasonable for both of us. I would do this because once you think about it they are revolting because there is something way wrong with how you are running the country and it is only fair that they are treated well. If I tried to crush the revolts then it might stop them for a little but over time things would just get worse and worse until they country just broke out into war and it would just be really bad. And if I don’t give the people of my country what they want then I will have no respect from them and I will lose all my power and they will "rule" the country.
Eli Jensen
3rd Hour
Anthony Lossia 3rd hour
In my opinion i would of crush these revolts and not allow it to occour again cause it strayed from civil right to mob mentality and caused more injustice to civil liberties to much bloodshed to many people klled a peace full revoluton would of done the same thing that they tried to do without the blood shed it also allowed frances enemys to almost conquer the country eventually the got rid of a monarchy but gain a dictator
Malik banks
3rd
Blog #9
If I was a monarch during that time I would listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of your power or empire's resources. I would listen to some of what they’re saying and if it’s a good idea I would allow it. I wouldn’t disregard it because some of what they’re saying might be good for us. I wouldn’t let them think they had power or control over anything because then they might try to overpower me and take over the empire. If the rebellion tried to overpower me then I would crush them. Also if they got to out of hand I would crush them. So my solution would be a little bit of both number 1 and 2 I would listen to them a little but I would crush them and make sure they never appear again if they got out of hand.
If I were a monarch of the old Europe in the mid 19th century and the revolutions of the 1848 were flaring up, I would completely agree to all of the revolutionaries requests and allow their region to become semi independent. I would do that because then the people would be happy in getting what they want, and there would probably be less revolts then. Also I would still be in rule. Each separate region would be able to semi rule themselves, unless there was a problem, then I would step in and try to compromise, avoiding revolts. If a system was working in one of the regions, I would use it. This would help everyone in the long run, and help us better understand each other, instead of revolting.
Kelly G - 3rd hour
I would examine the geography of the rebellious region and let them go if they weren't important or keep them if they were but let them have some form of liberties to make them happy. I wouldn't crush the revolts because then more leaders will come back. I wouldn't listen to anyone or give anyone anything if they demanded it because I would want to keep everything I have. I definitely won't agree to all the revolutionaries' requests because some requests might be useless or wrong. I would view the region and let them go if they weren't important, but keep them if they were because it would make my country better.
I would keep the region if it had good resources, ETC. Technology, copper, gold, and silver, good water, great crops, and large land would be a perfect region to keep. I would need all those things so I can make my country seem like a better place for people to live. The resources could be used to make products for people to use while farming, or to make mor houses, water so there will be good crops and plants growing for people to eat. I would need the land so I could plant the crops there. That's why I would view the region to see if I like it enough to keep it or not.
Kris
I would listen to the Revolutionaries’ demands and only use the ones that didn’t use much of my power or my empire’s resources. I choose this option because in my opinion out of the options this is the best one for me and my empire, and for the revolutionaries because I would not be looking for the most rebellious Revolutionaries with the most land to decide if their important or not. I would not give them permission to become “semi-independent” because that would create a lot of confrontations in the future when you have an amount of land and a lot of different groups of different groups of characters in neighbor to neighbor they will start to get quizzical about who gets what part of the region, and also I need them to help build my empire. I also would never “crush” anyone without good reason, but that still would not be a good idea to “crush” the revolts because that will just lead to pushing my people further away, leading to more revolts. I think by listening to their problems, even if the demands are too much for me and I turn it down, they would still appreciate me caring, and that more fair than, ignoring them, listening to them because they might be a threat, or flat out crushing them.
Alesha L. 1st hour
If I was a monarch of old Europe at the time of the Revolutions of 1848 and the mid 19th Century, I would crush the revolts and not let them occur again because it may be able to stop them from revolting again if you succeed in trying to stop them. The only problem doing this is that they won’t want to be under your commands about stopping the production of metals for weapons and other things such as food and necessities for the soldiers. If you succeed crushing the revolts, it may just backfire and they could just keep revolting and revolting over and over again until they get what they want. Another problem may be that over time they could get tired of being under ruled and just start some type of war. Other than these problems I think there’s a good chance that you can keep gaining power over the revolts and they would eventually stop.
Andrew Samosiuk
1st Hour
I Would completely agree to all of the revolutionaries' requests and allow their region to become semi-independent, because then they would be in control of themselves and they would know what to do to make everything right. But at some point they would realize the things they need and come back asking for things and they would see how much they needed what they gave up.
It would also stop anymore trouble from coming our way, because we let them have what they wanted and they should be satisfied.
Because they are semi independent they would still have things to live up to and obey.
(kbreana coleman 3rd hour)
Kaitlin Aubrey
3rd hour
Blog number 9
If I were a monarch of old Europe at this time (mid 19th Century) and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, I would go with opinion number two. I think that it is important to hear what everyone wants and what everyone needs. I would try my personal best to help everyone, however if the demand is too big and is not good enough to fulfill, I will try to help by making sure they are satisfied with less then they asked for. With them asking, listening to these demands seems to not be that hard as long as I don’t have to give up my empires valued resources. I would want to listen to the demands because I would not want to cause war and war never ends up in a good place. When picking the demands to fulfill I would want to pick the one that satisfies the most amount to people.
I have decided that if I was a Monarch of old Europe at this time mid 19th century and the revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, my action would be number 2. Which claims that I shall listen to the revolutionaries demands and use only the ones that didn’t demand too much of my power or the empires resources. I support this answer considering I will enjoy going through other choices, some of them I may be very fond of and some of them I may disagree with greatly. But the more variety that I will have in my monarchy the more the people will want to be in my monarchy. Also with this option there will not be a lot of wars and/or disagreements because I will be mostly pleasing the people and hearing what they want to do with the monarchy and not just making myself have all the power and I becoming some crazy ruler only doing things for myself.
Rachel S.
2.
I would listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power for the empires resources because not only is it good for my empire its good for everyone else. But i wouldn't let them have complete control because then they would think that they could take over my empire. I would only listen to some of their commands the ones that are agreeable and benefit mostly everyone.
making everything peaceful and not going into war.
~sierra barnes~
If you were a monarch of old Europe at this time (mid 19th Century) and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, which of the following would you do and why?
i would listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of my power or empire's resources because that way i would be able to they would think that i was considerate of other ideal's and i could really get a good view of what the revolutions think and why also i could use their ideals to shut them up, i would only use the ideas that did not require to much time and recources because i could still have time to think about id still have to think about what we wanted and needed.
KBreana c.
Post a Comment