Lesson 7 - German Unification - 1848-71
|
|
|
Introduction – From Napoleon to the New Germany
As we have seen, when Napoleon’s armies marched across Europe they spread more than conquest. They exported the ideals of the French Revolution — liberty, equality, citizenship — and in doing so stirred peoples who had never thought of themselves as nations. In the German lands, divided among dozens of princes and bishops, his occupation briefly replaced ancient privileges with modern codes and administration. After 1815, the Congress of Vienna tried to reverse this transformation by restoring monarchies and creating the German Confederation under Austrian leadership. But the forces of industry, nationalism, and war unleashed by the Napoleonic age could not be contained.
The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were Europe’s first great tests of these forces. Industrialisation had begun to reshape society, creating new cities, new social classes, and new expectations. Middle-class liberals demanded constitutions; intellectuals and students dreamed of national unity. In Italy and the German states alike, nationalism was strong in emotion but weak in power. The revolutions failed because they lacked the armies, industry, and leadership to succeed. Conservative monarchs regained control, yet the idea of the nation survived, waiting for more pragmatic hands to realise it. By the 1850s, those hands belonged to Prussia. Its growing industry and efficient rail network gave it the economic strength that the earlier revolutionaries lacked. Its army reforms under Moltke and its political realism under Bismarck turned idealism into strategy. Where the revolutions of 1848 had sought liberty through parliaments, Bismarck would achieve unity through Realpolitik — using diplomacy, industrial power, and war as instruments of policy.
As we have seen, when Napoleon’s armies marched across Europe they spread more than conquest. They exported the ideals of the French Revolution — liberty, equality, citizenship — and in doing so stirred peoples who had never thought of themselves as nations. In the German lands, divided among dozens of princes and bishops, his occupation briefly replaced ancient privileges with modern codes and administration. After 1815, the Congress of Vienna tried to reverse this transformation by restoring monarchies and creating the German Confederation under Austrian leadership. But the forces of industry, nationalism, and war unleashed by the Napoleonic age could not be contained.
The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were Europe’s first great tests of these forces. Industrialisation had begun to reshape society, creating new cities, new social classes, and new expectations. Middle-class liberals demanded constitutions; intellectuals and students dreamed of national unity. In Italy and the German states alike, nationalism was strong in emotion but weak in power. The revolutions failed because they lacked the armies, industry, and leadership to succeed. Conservative monarchs regained control, yet the idea of the nation survived, waiting for more pragmatic hands to realise it. By the 1850s, those hands belonged to Prussia. Its growing industry and efficient rail network gave it the economic strength that the earlier revolutionaries lacked. Its army reforms under Moltke and its political realism under Bismarck turned idealism into strategy. Where the revolutions of 1848 had sought liberty through parliaments, Bismarck would achieve unity through Realpolitik — using diplomacy, industrial power, and war as instruments of policy.
1. Germany before 1848 – A Land of Many States
Industrial change began to unite what politics still kept apart.
In 1815 the Congress of Vienna created a German Confederation of 39 states, from powerful monarchies like Austria and Prussia to small duchies and free cities such as Frankfurt. The new system was meant to preserve stability and Austrian influence, not to build a nation. Each state kept its own ruler, laws, and armies; there was no central parliament or government capable of acting for “Germany” as a whole. Yet beneath this political fragmentation, industrialisation was beginning to weave economic and social ties across frontiers. Railways expanded rapidly after 1835, carrying coal and iron from the Ruhr and Silesia to new factories. A growing population moved to towns for work, and by 1848 Germany was one of Europe’s most dynamic industrial regions. These networks linked people, markets, and ideas in ways the Confederation’s diplomats could not prevent.
At the same time, nationalist sentiment spread through universities, literary societies, and secret groups such as the Burschenschaften. Students celebrated a common language and culture, dreaming of a Germany that would match its industrial vitality with political unity. But the rulers of Austria and Prussia saw nationalism as a threat to their power. The result was tension between the old conservative order and the new middle-class forces born of commerce and education. For now, war remained only a memory: Napoleon’s defeat had brought peace but also humiliation. The generation that remembered occupation and liberation was still divided over what “Germany” meant, empire, federation, or nation. By 1848 these economic, social, and political pressures would converge in revolution.
Industrial change began to unite what politics still kept apart.
In 1815 the Congress of Vienna created a German Confederation of 39 states, from powerful monarchies like Austria and Prussia to small duchies and free cities such as Frankfurt. The new system was meant to preserve stability and Austrian influence, not to build a nation. Each state kept its own ruler, laws, and armies; there was no central parliament or government capable of acting for “Germany” as a whole. Yet beneath this political fragmentation, industrialisation was beginning to weave economic and social ties across frontiers. Railways expanded rapidly after 1835, carrying coal and iron from the Ruhr and Silesia to new factories. A growing population moved to towns for work, and by 1848 Germany was one of Europe’s most dynamic industrial regions. These networks linked people, markets, and ideas in ways the Confederation’s diplomats could not prevent.
At the same time, nationalist sentiment spread through universities, literary societies, and secret groups such as the Burschenschaften. Students celebrated a common language and culture, dreaming of a Germany that would match its industrial vitality with political unity. But the rulers of Austria and Prussia saw nationalism as a threat to their power. The result was tension between the old conservative order and the new middle-class forces born of commerce and education. For now, war remained only a memory: Napoleon’s defeat had brought peace but also humiliation. The generation that remembered occupation and liberation was still divided over what “Germany” meant, empire, federation, or nation. By 1848 these economic, social, and political pressures would converge in revolution.
|
2. Economic Unification – The Zollverein
Industry and trade laid the groundwork for a new German unity. The first real steps toward unification were taken not by revolutionaries or generals but by merchants and engineers. In the early 1820s, industrialisation was transforming the German states. Expanding railways made coal and iron available to factories far from their sources, and goods that had once sold only locally now found markets across the Confederation. Between 1850 and 1870, the length of railway track more than tripled, and by the 1860s Germany’s network was three times larger than Austria’s. Prussia’s population grew by over 80 per cent between 1816 and 1865, supplying workers for its booming industries. But economic progress demanded cooperation. The patchwork of internal tolls and tariffs left over from the Napoleonic era restricted trade and slowed development. In 1834, under Prussian leadership, a group of German states created the Zollverein, a customs union that abolished internal tariffs and established a common external trade policy. By 1842, 28 of the 39 states had joined. Crucially, Austria stayed out, preferring to protect its own agricultural markets. This decision left Prussia as the acknowledged economic leader of the German world.
|
The Zollverein over time.
|
The Zollverein’s success bound the member states together through commerce and communication. It encouraged industrial growth, stimulated railway building, and linked the economies of north and south. More subtly, it helped create a sense of shared national purpose among businessmen and the growing middle class — a form of economic nationalism that anticipated political unity. Without fighting a single battle, Prussia had already achieved what the revolutionaries of 1848 could not: a framework for a united Germany built on industry, trade, and mutual interest.
3. From Liberal Idealism to Prussian Power
After the failure of 1848, power replaced principle as the path to unification
After the failure of 1848, power replaced principle as the path to unification
|
After the failures of the 1848 revolutions, liberal nationalism did not disappear; it resurfaced in a new and more organised form. In 1863, the Nationalverein (National Union) was founded by middle-class liberals who believed that German unification should be achieved under Prussian, not Austrian, leadership. Although the movement never had mass support, it reflected a growing belief that Prussia, with its expanding industry and more modern administration, was the natural centre of a future united Germany.
At the same time, the rivalry between Prussia and Austria intensified. Prussia’s industrial economy was expanding rapidly and the Zollverein gave it increasing influence over the northern German states. |
|
When King Wilhelm I came to the throne in 1861, he faced a parliament dominated by liberals who opposed his plan to expand the army. Into this political deadlock stepped Otto von Bismarck, appointed Minister-President in 1862. Bismarck was no idealist. He practised Realpolitik and famously declared that the great questions of the day would be decided “not by speeches and majority votes, but by blood and iron.”
|
Bismarck’s first task was to strengthen Prussia’s military. Under Helmuth von Moltke, the Chief of Staff from 1857, the army was reorganised and modernised: new rifles, telegraph communications, and railway mobilisation plans turned it into the most efficient force in Europe. This fusion of industrial innovation and military planning made war a tool of policy rather than a disaster to be avoided. By the early 1860s, Prussia had emerged as both the industrial engine and military power of central Europe. Its liberal middle class might still talk of rights and constitutions, but Bismarck’s state was already showing how industry, nationalism, and war could combine to forge a new kind of nation — one built not on ideas, but on power.
|
|
4. The Danish War (1864)
Bismarck’s first war tested Prussia’s new army and his policy of Realpolitik.
In 1864, a dispute over two small duchies on the northern frontier — Schleswig and Holstein — gave Bismarck the opportunity to strengthen Prussia’s leadership in Germany. The new Danish king, Christian IX, tried to incorporate Schleswig into Denmark through a new constitution. To German nationalists, this violated earlier agreements guaranteeing the duchies’ independence. Bismarck moved quickly. He persuaded Austria to join Prussia in a joint military intervention, arguing that it defended German national interests. Behind this show of cooperation, however, he was already preparing to make Austria his next rival. The brief war demonstrated the effectiveness of Moltke’s military reforms and the integration of railway transport and modern weaponry. Within eight months, Danish forces were defeated and Denmark was forced to cede Schleswig and Holstein. Prussia took Schleswig; Austria took Holstein, an arrangement that gave Bismarck exactly what he wanted: a future cause for conflict. For German nationalists, the victory fed pride and unity; for Bismarck, it was an exercise in industrial and military efficiency rather than ideology. The lesson was clear, Prussia’s strength lay not in parliamentary debate, but in its ability to mobilise, strike, and win.
Bismarck’s first war tested Prussia’s new army and his policy of Realpolitik.
In 1864, a dispute over two small duchies on the northern frontier — Schleswig and Holstein — gave Bismarck the opportunity to strengthen Prussia’s leadership in Germany. The new Danish king, Christian IX, tried to incorporate Schleswig into Denmark through a new constitution. To German nationalists, this violated earlier agreements guaranteeing the duchies’ independence. Bismarck moved quickly. He persuaded Austria to join Prussia in a joint military intervention, arguing that it defended German national interests. Behind this show of cooperation, however, he was already preparing to make Austria his next rival. The brief war demonstrated the effectiveness of Moltke’s military reforms and the integration of railway transport and modern weaponry. Within eight months, Danish forces were defeated and Denmark was forced to cede Schleswig and Holstein. Prussia took Schleswig; Austria took Holstein, an arrangement that gave Bismarck exactly what he wanted: a future cause for conflict. For German nationalists, the victory fed pride and unity; for Bismarck, it was an exercise in industrial and military efficiency rather than ideology. The lesson was clear, Prussia’s strength lay not in parliamentary debate, but in its ability to mobilise, strike, and win.
5. The Austro-Prussian War (1866)
In seven weeks, Prussia replaced Austria as the dominant power in Germany.
In seven weeks, Prussia replaced Austria as the dominant power in Germany.
|
After the victory over Denmark, tension between Austria and Prussia quickly resurfaced. Both claimed the right to administer the newly conquered duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. Bismarck deliberately inflamed the dispute, knowing that conflict with Austria would allow Prussia to lead Germany on its own terms.
Before launching the war, Bismarck conducted a masterclass in Realpolitik. He secured the neutrality of France, Russia, and Italy, isolating Austria diplomatically. Italy, still seeking Venetia, agreed to attack Austria from the south, ensuring that Austrian forces would be divided. When war came in June 1866, Prussia’s industrial strength and military reform proved decisive. Railways allowed rapid mobilisation; breech-loading rifles gave Prussian infantry superior firepower; and Moltke’s General Staff used telegraphs to coordinate movements across multiple fronts. (Here I remind you of your work on Second Generational Warfare from 11e) In just seven weeks, Austria’s army was crushed at the Battle of Sadowa (Königgrätz) on 3 July 1866. |
|
The resulting Treaty of Prague excluded Austria from German affairs and dissolved the old German Confederation. In its place, Bismarck created the North German Confederation, uniting 22 northern states under Prussian leadership. Southern Germany remained independent but was now economically tied to Prussia through the Zollverein. Nationalists celebrated the victory as a triumph of “German” unity, but in truth it was a triumph of Prussian power achieved through industrial organisation, military precision, and Bismarck’s manipulation of diplomacy. Germany was now halfway to unification, but its future would be decided not in parliament, but on the battlefield once more.
6. The Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871)
Bismarck’s final war united Germany and humbled France.
After 1866, southern Germany remained outside the North German Confederation. These states — Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden — were Catholic and wary of Prussian dominance. Bismarck understood that only an external threat could persuade them to join a united Germany. That threat came from France. Napoleon III’s France still saw itself as Europe’s leading power, but the rise of a strong, industrial Prussia on its eastern frontier was unsettling. Tensions came to a head in 1870 over the question of the Spanish throne: France objected to a Prussian prince, Leopold of Hohenzollern, being offered the crown. When French diplomats demanded assurances from King Wilhelm I, Bismarck edited the report of their meeting — the now-famous Ems Telegram — to make it sound as though both sides had insulted each other. Outraged French public opinion pushed Napoleon III to declare war on 19 July 1870. For Bismarck, it was the perfect outcome: France appeared the aggressor, and the southern German states rushed to Prussia’s side in defence of the “German fatherland.”
Bismarck’s final war united Germany and humbled France.
After 1866, southern Germany remained outside the North German Confederation. These states — Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden — were Catholic and wary of Prussian dominance. Bismarck understood that only an external threat could persuade them to join a united Germany. That threat came from France. Napoleon III’s France still saw itself as Europe’s leading power, but the rise of a strong, industrial Prussia on its eastern frontier was unsettling. Tensions came to a head in 1870 over the question of the Spanish throne: France objected to a Prussian prince, Leopold of Hohenzollern, being offered the crown. When French diplomats demanded assurances from King Wilhelm I, Bismarck edited the report of their meeting — the now-famous Ems Telegram — to make it sound as though both sides had insulted each other. Outraged French public opinion pushed Napoleon III to declare war on 19 July 1870. For Bismarck, it was the perfect outcome: France appeared the aggressor, and the southern German states rushed to Prussia’s side in defence of the “German fatherland.”
|
Prussia’s industrial and military efficiency again proved decisive. The army mobilised over a million men, transported rapidly by rail and coordinated by telegraph. France, slower to mobilise, was outnumbered and outmanoeuvred. At Sedan (1–2 September 1870), Napoleon III himself was captured along with 100,000 troops. Paris fell soon after, and the new French republic was forced to accept harsh terms in the Treaty of Frankfurt (May 1871), a five-billion-franc indemnity and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. For the Germans, the war became a symbol of national triumph: the unity that had failed in 1848 was achieved through industry, nationalism, and war. For France, it was a humiliation that would define European politics for the next generation.
|
|
Matu Oral Source Alert
This painting, titled "Bismarck and Napoleon III After the Battle of Sedan", was created in 1878 by the German painter Wilhelm Camphausen. The scene shows a conversation between the defeated French Emperor Napoleon III (left, in French uniform) and the victorious Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (right, in Prussian military uniform and a Pickelhaube helmet). The Location and Date The historical meeting took place on the morning of September 2, 1870, near a weaver's cottage in Donchery, shortly after the French surrender at the Battle of Sedan. |
7. The German Empire (1871)
Unity was achieved, but power remained in Prussian hands.
In January 1871, as the siege of Paris continued, the rulers of the German states gathered in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles to proclaim King Wilhelm I of Prussia as German Emperor. The symbolism was unmistakable: France, once Europe’s dominant power, was humiliated, while Germany, forged by industrial strength, national pride, and military victory, was born in triumph on French soil.
The new German Empire brought together 18 states and four kingdoms within a federal system. In theory, it had a constitution with a parliament (Reichstag) elected by universal male suffrage. In practice, however, real power lay with the Kaiser, the Chancellor, and the army. The emperor commanded the military, appointed ministers, and could dissolve parliament. The empire was modern and industrial, but its politics remained authoritarian, or as the Matu syllabus has it “democracy with a question mark.”
Unity was achieved, but power remained in Prussian hands.
In January 1871, as the siege of Paris continued, the rulers of the German states gathered in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles to proclaim King Wilhelm I of Prussia as German Emperor. The symbolism was unmistakable: France, once Europe’s dominant power, was humiliated, while Germany, forged by industrial strength, national pride, and military victory, was born in triumph on French soil.
The new German Empire brought together 18 states and four kingdoms within a federal system. In theory, it had a constitution with a parliament (Reichstag) elected by universal male suffrage. In practice, however, real power lay with the Kaiser, the Chancellor, and the army. The emperor commanded the military, appointed ministers, and could dissolve parliament. The empire was modern and industrial, but its politics remained authoritarian, or as the Matu syllabus has it “democracy with a question mark.”
Famous painting by Anton von Werner of the Proclamation of the German Empire.
|
Less famous photo of Mr RJ-N
|
For many Germans, 1871 marked the fulfilment of the dream of Ein Volk, ein Reich — one people, one nation. Decades of division, frustration, and failed revolution had ended in victory. Yet this victory owed less to the ideals of the 1848 liberals than to Prussian militarism, Bismarck’s Realpolitik, and the power of modern industry. Germany entered the modern world as Europe’s strongest industrial and military state, but its unification by force, rather than consent, left unresolved tensions between liberalism and authority, and between nationalism and power. These tensions would shape the empire’s destiny (and Europe’s) for the next half-century.
The creation of the German Empire transformed Europe. A new, industrial superpower now stood at the heart of the continent, proud, efficient, and ambitious. Yet unification achieved through war and Realpolitik also left a legacy of militarism, rivalry, and insecurity. In the next lesson, we examine how Bismarck’s empire balanced power and democracy, built alliances to preserve peace, and in doing so helped to create the conditions that would one day lead to the First World War. (Matu 7)
The creation of the German Empire transformed Europe. A new, industrial superpower now stood at the heart of the continent, proud, efficient, and ambitious. Yet unification achieved through war and Realpolitik also left a legacy of militarism, rivalry, and insecurity. In the next lesson, we examine how Bismarck’s empire balanced power and democracy, built alliances to preserve peace, and in doing so helped to create the conditions that would one day lead to the First World War. (Matu 7)
Activities
Again you are going to create the notes necessary for a Matu oral, but this time there is no need to actually 'do' the oral unless you want to. I will be doing an old fashioned Matu style lecture and you will completing the same sort of diagram as last time. If you want to do this digitally you can download a Word doc here. Make up your own mnemonic if you want to.
Secondly, you are going to complete - by hand - a copy of the diagram below. It is my hope, after years of trying, that students will be able to understand that Germany was not united simply as a result of war. Fingers crossed.
Secondly, you are going to complete - by hand - a copy of the diagram below. It is my hope, after years of trying, that students will be able to understand that Germany was not united simply as a result of war. Fingers crossed.
Understanding the Venn Diagram Activity
This activity asks you to place key events from the German unification story into a Venn diagram showing the relationship between the Industrial Revolution, Nationalism, and War. It is important to remember that this division is not absolute. Historical categories such as Nationalism are analytical tools, not fixed labels. Many events could reasonably fit into two or even all three categories, depending on what aspect you choose to emphasise. The purpose is not to find a single “correct” answer, but to think about how different forces shaped the unification of Germany and how closely they were connected. The diagram is therefore a historical interpretation, not a fixed truth. What matters most is that you can justify your choices and explain how each event relates to the themes.
This activity asks you to place key events from the German unification story into a Venn diagram showing the relationship between the Industrial Revolution, Nationalism, and War. It is important to remember that this division is not absolute. Historical categories such as Nationalism are analytical tools, not fixed labels. Many events could reasonably fit into two or even all three categories, depending on what aspect you choose to emphasise. The purpose is not to find a single “correct” answer, but to think about how different forces shaped the unification of Germany and how closely they were connected. The diagram is therefore a historical interpretation, not a fixed truth. What matters most is that you can justify your choices and explain how each event relates to the themes.
Extras and extension.
How can we compare and contrast the experiences of Italian and German unification?
Italy and Germany were unified within a decade of each other, but the paths they followed and the forces that drove them were both similar in some ways and very different in others.
Main Similarities
Main Differences
Summary
Similarities: Both movements were driven by war, diplomacy, rising nationalism, and the leadership of a dominant state.
Differences: Germany’s unification was more industrial, more militaristic, and more controlled from above. Italy relied more on popular movements and was left with deeper internal divisions.
Italy and Germany were unified within a decade of each other, but the paths they followed and the forces that drove them were both similar in some ways and very different in others.
Main Similarities
- Unification through war- Both movements depended on a series of short, carefully controlled wars. Italy fought Austria in 1859, Garibaldi’s forces fought in the south in 1860, and Rome was taken in 1870. Germany fought in three wars: Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870–71). In both countries, decisive military victories reshaped the political landscape.
- Leadership by a strong state - Unification was led by the most powerful and modern state in each region: Piedmont-Sardinia in Italy and Prussia in Germany. These states had the strongest economies, the most effective governments, and the most capable leaders (Cavour and Victor Emmanuel II for Italy; Bismarck and Wilhelm I for Germany).
- The importance of great power diplomacy - Neither unification could succeed without managing relations with Europe’s major powers. Italy depended heavily on French support in 1859 and needed Prussia’s help in 1866. Germany relied on Bismarck’s careful diplomacy to keep France, Britain, and Russia neutral at key moments. Diplomacy was just as important as warfare.
- Nationalism as a motivating force - Both movements were encouraged by a rising sense of national identity based on a common language and history, supported by liberal thinkers, writers, and political movements. However, the strength and form of nationalism were not identical.
Main Differences
- The role of popular movements - In Italy, popular nationalism played a much bigger role. Garibaldi’s volunteers and mass uprisings were central to the story. In Germany, unification was more of a top-down process led by Prussia, with popular enthusiasm becoming significant mainly after military victories.
- Industrial development - Germany was far more industrialised than Italy. Railways, coal, iron, and modern weaponry gave Prussia a huge military and organisational advantage. Italy, especially the south, remained economically and technologically weaker. This difference shaped how quickly and effectively each unification was achieved.
- How nationalism and war interacted - In Germany, Bismarck used war deliberately to create nationalist unity. National feeling often followed victory. In Italy, nationalism came first: Mazzini, Young Italy, and other movements existed decades before unification wars began.
- Religion and the Church - In Italy, the Papal States were a major obstacle to unification and the Pope opposed the process throughout. In Germany, religious divisions (Protestant north and Catholic south) existed but did not prevent unification. Conflict with the Church came later in the Kulturkampf (next lesson).
- The final settlement. - Italy emerged as a constitutional monarchy in 1861 (with Rome added in 1870) but remained divided socially, economically, and regionally. Germany emerged in 1871 as a powerful, centralised, militarised empire dominated by Prussia, immediately becoming a major European power.
Summary
Similarities: Both movements were driven by war, diplomacy, rising nationalism, and the leadership of a dominant state.
Differences: Germany’s unification was more industrial, more militaristic, and more controlled from above. Italy relied more on popular movements and was left with deeper internal divisions.
|
|
|