Pub Date : 2023-03-22DOI: 10.1177/16118944231163225
John C. Eckel
Even though the crucial importance of World War II has never been called into doubt by historians, it has not featured as a focal point for the interpretation of the 20th century in recent narratives. In most cases, historians have located the war's historical meaning within the dualistic framework of ‘catastrophe’ and ‘reconstruction’. For all its obvious plausibility, however, this approach tends to isolate the war from the wider historical context. This article develops and discusses three perspectives that may serve to embed World War II within broader historical trends. It highlights the global dimensions of the war, examines contemporaneous interpretations that proved influential for decades after the war's conclusion – most notably, the notion of an ‘international civil war’ – and explores the causal and perceptual cohesiveness of the ‘age of world wars’ between 1911/14 and 1945/53. By pursuing these avenues, the essay makes several claims. It argues that World War II must be understood as part of longer-term developments originating in the late 19th century and reaching far into the second half of the 20th century; that the era of the world wars gave rise to a coherent space of experience forming the core of this extended trajectory; that there was no monolithic ‘interwar’ period, while the intellectual history of these decades reveals a smooth transition from world war to ‘Cold War’; and, finally, that World War II acted as a catalyst for far-reaching changes on a global scale.
{"title":"Pivot Years. World War II in 20th-Century History","authors":"John C. Eckel","doi":"10.1177/16118944231163225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231163225","url":null,"abstract":"Even though the crucial importance of World War II has never been called into doubt by historians, it has not featured as a focal point for the interpretation of the 20th century in recent narratives. In most cases, historians have located the war's historical meaning within the dualistic framework of ‘catastrophe’ and ‘reconstruction’. For all its obvious plausibility, however, this approach tends to isolate the war from the wider historical context. This article develops and discusses three perspectives that may serve to embed World War II within broader historical trends. It highlights the global dimensions of the war, examines contemporaneous interpretations that proved influential for decades after the war's conclusion – most notably, the notion of an ‘international civil war’ – and explores the causal and perceptual cohesiveness of the ‘age of world wars’ between 1911/14 and 1945/53. By pursuing these avenues, the essay makes several claims. It argues that World War II must be understood as part of longer-term developments originating in the late 19th century and reaching far into the second half of the 20th century; that the era of the world wars gave rise to a coherent space of experience forming the core of this extended trajectory; that there was no monolithic ‘interwar’ period, while the intellectual history of these decades reveals a smooth transition from world war to ‘Cold War’; and, finally, that World War II acted as a catalyst for far-reaching changes on a global scale.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"154 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47059770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-21DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161257
Aggelis Zarokostas
The British Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, and particularly Corfu, was a nodal point in maritime communications. Since its very creation under the Treaty of Paris (November 1815), it gave the British a significant advantage in terms of information gathering. When a general uprising broke out in the Greek mainland, the British authorities put the islands in a state of emergency. Strict Ionian neutrality was declared and harsh measures were justified, which aimed to maintain ‘public tranquility’ and to secure the islanders from any revolutionary ideas coming from the mainland. The implications of this neutrality are little studied, perhaps because of the perceived peripheral role of the Ionian Islands in the Greek struggle. Yet, as this paper shows, the islands were deeply affected by developments taking place in the mainland, such as the rebellion of Ali Pasha of Ioannina between 1819 and 1822, when the British increased military presence in the region. Instead of discouraging the ties between the islanders and the Greek Revolution as intended, British reactions produced the opposite result. They further alienated the Anglo-Ionian state from the Ionian society. The present article analyses how British officials utilized disproportionate fears over the spread of revolutionary ideas in the islands, as well as military escalation in the region, to impose harsh measures on the islands and to ‘normalize’ emergency strategies. It builds upon relevant literature not only on the movement of information in the Mediterranean, but also on British policy over the so-called ‘Greek Question’.
{"title":"Islands in a ‘State of Emergency’. Ionian Neutrality and Martial Law During the Greek Revolution","authors":"Aggelis Zarokostas","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161257","url":null,"abstract":"The British Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, and particularly Corfu, was a nodal point in maritime communications. Since its very creation under the Treaty of Paris (November 1815), it gave the British a significant advantage in terms of information gathering. When a general uprising broke out in the Greek mainland, the British authorities put the islands in a state of emergency. Strict Ionian neutrality was declared and harsh measures were justified, which aimed to maintain ‘public tranquility’ and to secure the islanders from any revolutionary ideas coming from the mainland. The implications of this neutrality are little studied, perhaps because of the perceived peripheral role of the Ionian Islands in the Greek struggle. Yet, as this paper shows, the islands were deeply affected by developments taking place in the mainland, such as the rebellion of Ali Pasha of Ioannina between 1819 and 1822, when the British increased military presence in the region. Instead of discouraging the ties between the islanders and the Greek Revolution as intended, British reactions produced the opposite result. They further alienated the Anglo-Ionian state from the Ionian society. The present article analyses how British officials utilized disproportionate fears over the spread of revolutionary ideas in the islands, as well as military escalation in the region, to impose harsh measures on the islands and to ‘normalize’ emergency strategies. It builds upon relevant literature not only on the movement of information in the Mediterranean, but also on British policy over the so-called ‘Greek Question’.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"238 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44079354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-20DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161250
Christopher Mapes
Slavery remained a problem for Central Europeans after the defeat of Napoleon. Concerns over White, Christian enslavement animated German-speaking European responses to the Greek Independence movement. As most antislavery advocates turned their attention to the increasing volume of the slaves traded between Africa and the New World, as well as the persistence and entrenchment of New World slavery, Central Europeans turned their attention to the Christian, Greek subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The so-called ‘Barbary Problem’ (Barbareskenfrage) became enmeshed with the Eastern Question as Greeks revolted in Ottoman lands. Central Europeans had long viewed the domination of Christians in Islamic North Africa as the central problem of slavery until increased German migration and involvement in the New World brought new tensions to the ideas surrounding slavery. Greek insurrectionists against the Ottoman Empire breathed new life into older ideas about Christians enslaved in Islamic portions of Europe and Africa. Greek Independence gave Germans a bête noir closer to Europe than that of slavery in the Americas. Much of this interest owes to an enduring German philhellenic tradition which has been seldom analysed. Indeed, as Sue Marchand has written ‘the obsession of the Schillerian German literary and scholarly elite with the ancient Greeks has become an accepted-if severely underanlaysed-cliché’. This paper uses archival documents to shed more light on how Central Europeans’ interest and participation in the Greek War of Independence helped to revive old ideas about Christian enslavement at a time when New World slavery became the central concern of a broader European humanitarian protest against servitude.
{"title":"Under the Yoke of Ottoman Domination: Slavery and Central European Philhellenism During the Greek War of Independence","authors":"Christopher Mapes","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161250","url":null,"abstract":"Slavery remained a problem for Central Europeans after the defeat of Napoleon. Concerns over White, Christian enslavement animated German-speaking European responses to the Greek Independence movement. As most antislavery advocates turned their attention to the increasing volume of the slaves traded between Africa and the New World, as well as the persistence and entrenchment of New World slavery, Central Europeans turned their attention to the Christian, Greek subjects of the Ottoman Empire. The so-called ‘Barbary Problem’ (Barbareskenfrage) became enmeshed with the Eastern Question as Greeks revolted in Ottoman lands. Central Europeans had long viewed the domination of Christians in Islamic North Africa as the central problem of slavery until increased German migration and involvement in the New World brought new tensions to the ideas surrounding slavery. Greek insurrectionists against the Ottoman Empire breathed new life into older ideas about Christians enslaved in Islamic portions of Europe and Africa. Greek Independence gave Germans a bête noir closer to Europe than that of slavery in the Americas. Much of this interest owes to an enduring German philhellenic tradition which has been seldom analysed. Indeed, as Sue Marchand has written ‘the obsession of the Schillerian German literary and scholarly elite with the ancient Greeks has become an accepted-if severely underanlaysed-cliché’. This paper uses archival documents to shed more light on how Central Europeans’ interest and participation in the Greek War of Independence helped to revive old ideas about Christian enslavement at a time when New World slavery became the central concern of a broader European humanitarian protest against servitude.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"199 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48645899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-20DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161255
O. Ozavci
This article traces what hindsight shows to be the failure paths of the Ottoman ruling elites in dealing with the Greek revolution of 1821–1832. It considers why Sultan Mahmud II and the Ottoman ministers were unable to quell the ‘insurgence’ definitively and fend off Great Power intervention diplomatically. To this end, it looks into the reaction of the Ottoman rulers to the adversity as well as rivalries among the pashas of the sultan, which strained the imperial front, heightened violence against the insurgents, and then tore apart the military campaign. At the same time, it seeks to re-instate in the historiography of the Eastern Question the much-neglected Ottoman positionality with a contrapuntal approach. It places the agency of European and Ottoman actors within the same analytical frame in its discussion of the Great Power intervention in 1827, disclosing why the Ottoman ministers rejected the European Powers’ proposals to mediate between the imperial authorities and the Greek revolutionaries. Consulting fresh archival and secondary sources in the Arabic, English, French, Russian, Ottoman, and modern Turkish languages, the article draws attention to several overlooked yet vital moments of the revolution's storyline.
{"title":"The Ottoman Imperial Gaze: The Greek Revolution of 1821–1832 and a New History of the Eastern Question","authors":"O. Ozavci","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161255","url":null,"abstract":"This article traces what hindsight shows to be the failure paths of the Ottoman ruling elites in dealing with the Greek revolution of 1821–1832. It considers why Sultan Mahmud II and the Ottoman ministers were unable to quell the ‘insurgence’ definitively and fend off Great Power intervention diplomatically. To this end, it looks into the reaction of the Ottoman rulers to the adversity as well as rivalries among the pashas of the sultan, which strained the imperial front, heightened violence against the insurgents, and then tore apart the military campaign. At the same time, it seeks to re-instate in the historiography of the Eastern Question the much-neglected Ottoman positionality with a contrapuntal approach. It places the agency of European and Ottoman actors within the same analytical frame in its discussion of the Great Power intervention in 1827, disclosing why the Ottoman ministers rejected the European Powers’ proposals to mediate between the imperial authorities and the Greek revolutionaries. Consulting fresh archival and secondary sources in the Arabic, English, French, Russian, Ottoman, and modern Turkish languages, the article draws attention to several overlooked yet vital moments of the revolution's storyline.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"222 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43696341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-20DOI: 10.1177/16118944231163226
Beatrice de Graaf, E. de Lange
From their beginnings, the revolutionary events that shook the Greek lands of the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s were neither contained nor constrained by national or imperial borders. What Ottoman contemporaries termed the ‘Greek mischief’ ( fesad) and later historiography would call the Greek war of independence, became a protracted inter-imperial crisis as soon as it commenced. The present bicentennial of the Greek Revolution makes it all the more relevant to reassess and rethink this history from more than just a national perspective. Of course, a sizeable literature on the border-crossing dynamics of these events already exists. Historians have long debated the transnational appeal of the Greek cause. They have thoroughly unpacked the international involvement in the war of independence, whether it be with an emphasis on diplomatic or military events. The Greek revolutionaries, for their part, drew on crucial support networks that spanned the world and
{"title":"Introduction: Under the Flag of Insurgency: The Greek Revolution in International and Imperial History","authors":"Beatrice de Graaf, E. de Lange","doi":"10.1177/16118944231163226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231163226","url":null,"abstract":"From their beginnings, the revolutionary events that shook the Greek lands of the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s were neither contained nor constrained by national or imperial borders. What Ottoman contemporaries termed the ‘Greek mischief’ ( fesad) and later historiography would call the Greek war of independence, became a protracted inter-imperial crisis as soon as it commenced. The present bicentennial of the Greek Revolution makes it all the more relevant to reassess and rethink this history from more than just a national perspective. Of course, a sizeable literature on the border-crossing dynamics of these events already exists. Historians have long debated the transnational appeal of the Greek cause. They have thoroughly unpacked the international involvement in the war of independence, whether it be with an emphasis on diplomatic or military events. The Greek revolutionaries, for their part, drew on crucial support networks that spanned the world and","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"175 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41669426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-17DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161221
E. de Lange
Virtually every publication on the Greek Revolution signals the Battle of Navarino (20 October 1827) as a turning point in international involvement with events in Greece. What the historiography tends to ignore, however, is the significant degree of military intervention that preceded 1827, particularly at sea. Yet, the Greek Revolution was six years underway and had already taken to the sea by the time of Navarino. Several naval actors at Navarino had been involved in the maritime handling of the revolution since its very beginning, including the Royal Navy captain Gawen Hamilton, the French Vice-Admiral Henri de Rigny and the Algerine commander Mustapha Bachalî Raïs. What had they been doing before then in the seas around Greece? By looking at the first phases of the Greek Revolution, from 1821 to 1827, this article clarifies how different imperial powers tried to manage the uncertainties and threats that the rebellion brought to the waters of the Mediterranean. It draws from source material on the navies of Great Britain, France, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. The piece provides three insights that highlight the significance and contingencies of imperial involvement in the first phase of the revolution. These insights relate to: (a) belligerency at sea; (b) the security threats of piracy and privateering; and (3) naval interventionism.
{"title":"Navigating the Greek Revolution before Navarino. Imperial Interventions in Aegean Waters, 1821–1827","authors":"E. de Lange","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161221","url":null,"abstract":"Virtually every publication on the Greek Revolution signals the Battle of Navarino (20 October 1827) as a turning point in international involvement with events in Greece. What the historiography tends to ignore, however, is the significant degree of military intervention that preceded 1827, particularly at sea. Yet, the Greek Revolution was six years underway and had already taken to the sea by the time of Navarino. Several naval actors at Navarino had been involved in the maritime handling of the revolution since its very beginning, including the Royal Navy captain Gawen Hamilton, the French Vice-Admiral Henri de Rigny and the Algerine commander Mustapha Bachalî Raïs. What had they been doing before then in the seas around Greece? By looking at the first phases of the Greek Revolution, from 1821 to 1827, this article clarifies how different imperial powers tried to manage the uncertainties and threats that the rebellion brought to the waters of the Mediterranean. It draws from source material on the navies of Great Britain, France, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. The piece provides three insights that highlight the significance and contingencies of imperial involvement in the first phase of the revolution. These insights relate to: (a) belligerency at sea; (b) the security threats of piracy and privateering; and (3) naval interventionism.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"181 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44654170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-17DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161256
C. Aliprantis
This contribution examines the position of the Habsburg Empire vis-à-vis the Greek Revolution of 1821–1830 with a special focus on policing. It suggests that with its undeniable transnational significance and perceived threat against the status quo after 1815, the Greek Revolution pushed the Austrian state to enforce a variety of police measures to contain this alleged threat. These measures ranged from passport and border control directed towards moving Philhellenes, to monitoring Greek refugees and exiles, and using unofficial agents and consuls abroad to gather information on the rebellious Greeks. The article uses the Austrian police policies towards the Greeks as a vehicle to understand more widely how nineteenth-century policing functioned. Based on policing, the paper thus adds to the intellectual and administrative history of modern statehood.
{"title":"Policing Subversion in Post-Napoleonic Europe: Austria and the Greek Revolution of 1821–1830","authors":"C. Aliprantis","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161256","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution examines the position of the Habsburg Empire vis-à-vis the Greek Revolution of 1821–1830 with a special focus on policing. It suggests that with its undeniable transnational significance and perceived threat against the status quo after 1815, the Greek Revolution pushed the Austrian state to enforce a variety of police measures to contain this alleged threat. These measures ranged from passport and border control directed towards moving Philhellenes, to monitoring Greek refugees and exiles, and using unofficial agents and consuls abroad to gather information on the rebellious Greeks. The article uses the Austrian police policies towards the Greeks as a vehicle to understand more widely how nineteenth-century policing functioned. Based on policing, the paper thus adds to the intellectual and administrative history of modern statehood.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"251 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46817631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-17DOI: 10.1177/16118944231161251
G. Conte
The unification of Italian public debts in 1861 has been analysed until now without any detailed investigation into the changes that occurred in pre-existent public finance models, particularly as regards the contextualisation of public debt within the evolving framework of Italian capitalism. The Kingdom of Sardinia imposed on the other Italian regions not merely a state, bureaucratic and administrative system, but also an economic and financial one: a modern liberal-capitalist model of northern European origin and inspiration. The transition and incorporation of the Neapolitan public debt into the Great Book of the Italian Public Debt bear witness to this change. The aim of the present article is to investigate the transformation of the Italian public debt's structure. I explore specifically the effects of the shift from registered bonds to bearer bonds in Naples, as exemplifying a more radical metamorphosis and the transition from a public finance model typical of the ancien régime to the modern liberal-capitalist one, which is characterised by the Kingdom of Sardinia.
{"title":"Two Portrayals of Public Debt in the Formation of Modern Italy: From the Ancien Régime to Modern Capitalism","authors":"G. Conte","doi":"10.1177/16118944231161251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231161251","url":null,"abstract":"The unification of Italian public debts in 1861 has been analysed until now without any detailed investigation into the changes that occurred in pre-existent public finance models, particularly as regards the contextualisation of public debt within the evolving framework of Italian capitalism. The Kingdom of Sardinia imposed on the other Italian regions not merely a state, bureaucratic and administrative system, but also an economic and financial one: a modern liberal-capitalist model of northern European origin and inspiration. The transition and incorporation of the Neapolitan public debt into the Great Book of the Italian Public Debt bear witness to this change. The aim of the present article is to investigate the transformation of the Italian public debt's structure. I explore specifically the effects of the shift from registered bonds to bearer bonds in Naples, as exemplifying a more radical metamorphosis and the transition from a public finance model typical of the ancien régime to the modern liberal-capitalist one, which is characterised by the Kingdom of Sardinia.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"266 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42542018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-19DOI: 10.1177/16118944221148939
R. Wenzlhuemer, Tom Menger, Valeska Huber, Heidi J. S. Tworek, S. Sivasundaram, Simone M. Müller, Callie Wilkinson, M. Herren, Martin Dusinberre
Corresponding authors: Roland Wenzlhuemer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany. Email: roland.wenzlhuemer@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tom Menger, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany Email: T.Menger@lmu.de Valeska Huber, University of Vienna, Austria Email: valeska.huber@univie.ac.at Heidi J. S. Tworek, University of British Columbia, Canada Email: heidi.tworek@ubc.ca Sujit Sivasundaram, University of Cambridge, UK Email: sps20@cam.ac.uk Simone M. Müller, University of Augsburg, Germany Email: simone.mueller@uni-a.de Callie Wilkinson, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany Email: Callie.Wilkinson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Madeleine Herren, University of Basle, Switzerland Email: madeleine.herren-oesch@unibas.ch Martin Dusinberre, University of Zurich, Switzerland Email: martin.dusinberre@hist.uzh.ch 1. J. Adelman, ‘What Is Global History Now?’, in: Aeon (blog), March 2, 2017. https://aeon.co/essays/is-global-historystill-possible-or-has-it-had-its-moment. Forum: Global Dis:connections
通讯作者:Roland Wenzlhuemer, ludwig - maximilian - university Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1,80539 Munich, Germany。Email: roland.wenzlhuemer@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tom Menger，德国慕尼黑大学Email: T.Menger@lmu.de Valeska Huber，奥地利维也纳大学Email: valeska.huber@univie.ac.at Heidi J. S. Tworek，加拿大英属哥伦比亚大学Email: heidi.tworek@ubc.ca Sujit Sivasundaram，英国剑桥大学Email: sps20@cam.ac.uk Simone M. m ller，德国奥格斯堡大学Email:simone.mueller@uni-a.de德国慕尼黑大学Callie Wilkinson电子邮件:Callie.Wilkinson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de瑞士巴塞尔大学Madeleine Herren电子邮件:madeleine.herren-oesch@unibas.ch瑞士苏黎世大学Martin Dusinberre电子邮件:martin.dusinberre@hist.uzh.chJ.阿德尔曼:《现在的全球历史是什么?》，见:Aeon(博客)，2017年3月2日。https://aeon.co/essays/is-global-historystill-possible-or-has-it-had-its-moment。论坛:全球疾病:联系
{"title":"Forum Global Dis:connections","authors":"R. Wenzlhuemer, Tom Menger, Valeska Huber, Heidi J. S. Tworek, S. Sivasundaram, Simone M. Müller, Callie Wilkinson, M. Herren, Martin Dusinberre","doi":"10.1177/16118944221148939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221148939","url":null,"abstract":"Corresponding authors: Roland Wenzlhuemer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany. Email: roland.wenzlhuemer@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tom Menger, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany Email: T.Menger@lmu.de Valeska Huber, University of Vienna, Austria Email: valeska.huber@univie.ac.at Heidi J. S. Tworek, University of British Columbia, Canada Email: heidi.tworek@ubc.ca Sujit Sivasundaram, University of Cambridge, UK Email: sps20@cam.ac.uk Simone M. Müller, University of Augsburg, Germany Email: simone.mueller@uni-a.de Callie Wilkinson, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany Email: Callie.Wilkinson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Madeleine Herren, University of Basle, Switzerland Email: madeleine.herren-oesch@unibas.ch Martin Dusinberre, University of Zurich, Switzerland Email: martin.dusinberre@hist.uzh.ch 1. J. Adelman, ‘What Is Global History Now?’, in: Aeon (blog), March 2, 2017. https://aeon.co/essays/is-global-historystill-possible-or-has-it-had-its-moment. Forum: Global Dis:connections","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"2 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47663087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-04DOI: 10.1177/16118944221146910
Piotr Kuligowski, W. Marzec
This article investigates the changing ideas of representation during one of the European upheavals of the 1830s, the Polish November Uprising. Studying the Polish Sejm proceedings, we ask about the impact of the uprising and warfare on revamping the concept of representation. A representative, parliamentary, but not yet democratic order emerged under the conditions of reduced sovereignty. We demonstrate how pragmatic considerations in times of war ushered in non-descriptive and non-imperative representation and how the struggle for legitimacy helped introduce the idea of the government's responsibility to the nation. Although the broadening of citizenship beyond the nobles was still debated only concerning possible land reform, the push and pull of the frontline situation and transnational diffusion and learning spurred on fundamental changes. The 1831 Sejm was a threshold for modern parliamentarism in Poland, bringing its earlier endogenous developments in line with European drift towards representative government.
{"title":"Who May Represent a Nation in Upheaval? The Concept of Representation during the Polish November Uprising, 1830–1831","authors":"Piotr Kuligowski, W. Marzec","doi":"10.1177/16118944221146910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221146910","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the changing ideas of representation during one of the European upheavals of the 1830s, the Polish November Uprising. Studying the Polish Sejm proceedings, we ask about the impact of the uprising and warfare on revamping the concept of representation. A representative, parliamentary, but not yet democratic order emerged under the conditions of reduced sovereignty. We demonstrate how pragmatic considerations in times of war ushered in non-descriptive and non-imperative representation and how the struggle for legitimacy helped introduce the idea of the government's responsibility to the nation. Although the broadening of citizenship beyond the nobles was still debated only concerning possible land reform, the push and pull of the frontline situation and transnational diffusion and learning spurred on fundamental changes. The 1831 Sejm was a threshold for modern parliamentarism in Poland, bringing its earlier endogenous developments in line with European drift towards representative government.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"34 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44218013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：