Were the revolutions of 1848 important?

Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 · Paper 1 Section A, Core Content Option A Syllabus: 2027 and 2028 Option A: The nineteenth century: the development of modern nation states, 1848 to 1914 Key Question 1 of six

This file covers one Key Question: whether the revolutions that broke out across Europe in 1848 mattered. It is Core Content, it is the first of the six nineteenth century Key Questions, and on Paper 1 it is always Question 1. If you are looking for Italian unification, German unification, the American Civil War, empire, or the causes of the First World War, those are Key Questions 2 to 6 and they are separate files. If you are looking for a Depth Study, none of them touches 1848: the earliest begins in 1905.

One thing to fix before you read further. The Key Question is a verdict question, not a narrative question. Cambridge has set the 10 mark part on this topic twenty six times since 2018 and more than half of those questions ask some version of "did the revolutions achieve anything". The commonest recorded fault on this exact question is telling the story of the revolution instead of judging it. Everything below is arranged so the facts arrive already attached to an argument.

1. What the syllabus actually asks

This is the wording printed in the Cambridge IGCSE History 0470 syllabus for 2027 and 2028. Learn the Key Question itself: examiners build 10 mark questions straight out of it.

Key Question 1

Were the revolutions of 1848 important?

Focus points

• Why had liberalism and nationalism grown in influence by 1848?
• Why were there so many revolutions in 1848?
• Did the revolutions have anything in common?
• Why did most of the revolutions fail?
• Did the revolutions change anything?

Specified content

• The nature of revolutions in 1848 and the influence of liberalism and nationalism
• Causes, events and results of revolutions in:
• France
• Italy
• Germany
• the Austrian Empire
• Reasons for the failure of the revolutions

Five focus points, five essay titles

Cambridge says focus points "identify the issues that enable candidates to gain an understanding of the key question". They are not five sub-topics to memorise in turn. They are five arguments, and each one has already been set as a real 10 mark question.

Notice how uneven that last column is. The syllabus gives the five focus points equal billing. The papers do not.

A note on dates

The Option A header is dated 1848 to 1914. This Key Question's specified content prints no date range of its own, so the option header is all you have, and taken literally it would start the syllabus in 1848.

The papers do not read it that literally, and neither should you. Cambridge has set 4 and 6 mark questions on the difficulties facing the Hungarian government before the revolution of 1848, on the reform banquets of 1847 to 1848, on why liberal ideas had spread in Europe by 1848, on why nationalism had grown in Germany by 1848, and on the Statuto issued by Charles Albert in 1847. Focus point 1 asks why liberalism and nationalism had grown in influence by 1848, which is a question about the years before it.

So the working rule for this Key Question is that the causes run back into the 1840s and the results run forward past 1849, and Cambridge credits both. Where a question prints its own date limit, that limit wins.

This Key Question overlaps its neighbours, and that is deliberate

The specified content lists revolutions in Italy and Germany under this Key Question. Key Question 2 separately lists "Events of 1848 to 1849", and Key Question 3 separately lists "The 1848 revolution in Prussia" and "The setting up and eventual failure of the Frankfurt Parliament".

So Charles Albert, the Roman Republic, Frankfurt and Frederick William IV are examinable under three different Key Questions. That is not a mistake in the syllabus and you should not try to split them. What changes is the angle:

1. under Key Question 1 the question is what 1848 achieved
2. under Key Questions 2 and 3 the question is what unification needed
3. the same events, weighed on different scales

Stay on the Core Content side and stay on the 1848 scale. If a question asks whether the revolutions were important, an answer that slides into Cavour, Plombières or Bismarck is answering Key Question 2 or 3 instead.

2. Where this Key Question sits on the paper

The marking itself, the three parts and their marks, the assessment objective split, the level ladders and the two rules Cambridge changed for the 2024 series, is in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes. Read that page once. Nothing below repeats it. What follows is only what is true of this topic.

It is Question 1, and it is never anything else. Forty eight Paper 1 mark schemes were read for these notes, covering March, June and November from 2018 to 2024. Twenty six of them set a question on this Key Question, and in all twenty six it was Question 1. It has never appeared as Question 2, 3 or 4 in that period.

Question 1 alternates with Italy. In all forty eight papers, Question 1 was drawn from either this Key Question or Key Question 2, Italian unification. The other twenty two papers put Italy at Question 1. So roughly every other paper carries a full 1848 question, and preparing this topic and Italian unification together guarantees you a Question 1 you can answer.

One paper blends the two. June 2024 Paper 11 sets part (a) on the French Provisional Government of February 1848 and part (b) on the growth of German nationalism by 1848, both squarely this Key Question, and then part (c) on progress towards Italian unification in 1848 to 1849. A candidate who had revised only one of the two would have been in trouble on that paper.

It is a Paper 2 prescribed topic in November 2027. The syllabus prints the prescribed topics for the document paper, and for the 2027 November exam the nineteenth century topic is "Were the revolutions of 1848 important?" in exactly those words. That is the same Key Question, examined as a source paper. Section 9 covers what Paper 2 does with it, which is a different skill entirely.

The examiner reports are almost silent on Option A, and that is worth knowing

Eighteen Principal Examiner reports for 2018 to 2024 are on file, containing thirty seven separate Paper 1 sections. Thirty five of them say there were too few responses to Questions 1 to 4 for meaningful comments to be made. Only two comment on an Option A question at all, and only one of those, June 2018 Paper 11, comments on this Key Question.

Two consequences.

Almost nobody sits Option A. Cambridge reports Questions 5 and 6, the twentieth century, as the most popular in Section A series after series. If your centre teaches the nineteenth century you are in a small group, and you cannot lean on published commentary the way an Option B candidate can.

The general faults in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes therefore carry more weight here, because they are almost the only examiner guidance that reaches this content. Section 10 has the little that is specific to 1848.

3. Focus point: why liberalism and nationalism had grown in influence by 1848

This is the "before" chapter and it does two jobs. It supplies the causes for focus point 2 and it supplies the yardstick for focus point 5: you cannot say what the revolutions changed unless you know what they were trying to change.

Liberalism, and who wanted it

Cambridge's own explanation of liberal support, given as a Level 3 answer, runs through industrialisation. Industrialisation had strengthened the middle classes, who had become more important economically but still lacked political power, which remained with the traditional rulers and aristocracy. Add poor quality government and ideas inherited from the Enlightenment, and the demand follows.

What liberals actually wanted, in Cambridge's recurring wording: the freedom to vote, worship and own land; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; a written constitution; representative government; and a say in how their country was governed. Royal absolutism, as the mark schemes repeatedly put it, seemed to be out of date.

1. a new middle class with money but no vote
2. an old order that would not share power
3. liberal demands that only a constitution could satisfy

Specific anchors you can attach to that chain. In Austria, large numbers were unhappy with Metternich's repressive way of governing, and Metternich tried to prevent people from discussing political ideas at all. In Prussia, Frederick William IV encouraged liberals by hinting that the country could have a constitution. In France, the demand was for extension of the franchise and constitutional reform.

Nationalism, and why it meant two different things

Nationalism in 1848 was not one demand. Cambridge draws the distinction itself, and drawing it is worth a mark.

• Independence from a ruling empire. In Hungary and in much of Italy, national groups sought independence from Austrian rule.
• Unification of scattered states. In Germany and Italy, nationalists wished to unite with other states to form a larger nation.

Why German nationalism had grown by 1848 has been set as a 6 mark question in its own right. The reasons Cambridge credits: fear of France, since Napoleon had recently defeated both Austria and Prussia and there was fear in the 1840s that France would invade the German states along the Rhine, producing a great upsurge of German nationalism in the newspapers; the coming of the railways; the Zollverein; the threat to Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark; the Bund as a focus for nationalist hopes; and a growing feeling that Germany would be stronger as one country. Support was strongest among the middle classes.

1. Napoleonic invasion in living memory
2. a new invasion feared along the Rhine
3. Germans in different states discovering they were German first

Which one mattered more

Five of the twenty six 10 mark questions on this Key Question are a straight contest between liberalism and nationalism as causes, or between nationalism and economic grievance. That is the second commonest shape after "did it achieve anything", so you need a position ready.

The position Cambridge's own exemplars support is that the answer varies by place, and saying so with examples is itself the judgement:

• Where a people already had a state, as in France, the demands were liberal and constitutional. A desire for national unity was important in Germany and Italy but not in France.
• Where a people did not, as in Hungary or northern Italy, the demand was national first.
• In Germany the two ran together. The Frankfurt Parliament wanted both a united Germany and a constitution with an elected parliament and a constitutional monarch, which is why it is evidence for either side of the argument.

4. Focus point: why there were so many revolutions in 1848

The word to notice in the focus point is so many. The question is not why revolution happened in one place. It is why it happened almost everywhere at once, and that has a different answer from the liberal and national grievances above, which had been present for years without producing 1848.

The trigger nobody planned: the economy

Cambridge's mark schemes give this consistently and it is the answer to "why then".

There were a series of economic downturns just before the revolutions, with crop failures, particularly those of 1846, and the resulting high prices. There was a recession in 1846 to 1847. Unemployment was high. The peasants and the working urban poor were semi-starved and often jobless. In France specifically the crisis produced middle class bankruptcies as well, so the king lost both classes at once. In Italy there had been crop failure in 1846 and 1847 with food prices high enough to cause starvation.

1. harvest failure in 1846
2. food prices up and industry into recession
3. the poor starving and the middle class ruined
4. grievances that had been theoretical became urgent in the same months across Europe

That last step is the answer to "so many". The economic shock was continental, so the flashpoint was simultaneous.

The second mechanism: contagion

Cambridge credits this directly. The March rioting in Vienna "had been encouraged by the successes of demonstrations in Paris". Revolution in Hungary was "influenced by the revolution in France". Once Paris had shown that a monarchy could be toppled in three days, the same demands elsewhere stopped looking impossible.

France, where it started

Cambridge asks about the fall of Louis Philippe more than any other single event in this Key Question. It has been the 6 mark question four times since 2018, phrased as why he was unpopular, why he abdicated, and why he was overthrown. Learn it as a sequence.

• The economic depression of 1846 to 1847: poor harvests, food shortages, a financial crisis, high unemployment especially in Paris, and middle class bankruptcies.
• The king did nothing. Cambridge's exemplar makes the failure to act, not the crisis itself, the explanation: he did not think he needed to act because he had won the elections of 1846.
• The reform banquets of 1847 to 1848. Political meetings and opposition were banned, so reformers held paid banquets instead, which got round the law forbidding public assemblies and let the middle classes make speeches demanding reform. They were, in Cambridge's words, the only way the regime could be criticised.
• Guizot banned the banquets in Paris in January and February 1848. The chief minister and his policies were themselves a major source of the king's unpopularity, and writers such as Louis Blanc attacked him.
• 22 February 1848: a protest march through Paris, barricades in the streets.
• 23 February: Louis Philippe dismissed Guizot. Troops shot dead fifty two people and barricades went up all over Paris. Mole and Thiers were offered the leadership and both refused; Odilon Barrot took control.
• Louis Philippe abdicated in favour of his grandson and fled. Lamartine proclaimed the Second Republic almost immediately.

1. a ban on banquets
2. the only legal outlet for criticism closed
3. a march, a volley, and barricades
4. a king with no minister, no successor and no army willing to hold Paris

The banning is the pivot. A 6 mark answer that says "there was an economic crisis" identifies. A 6 mark answer that says the ban removed the last safe outlet for opposition and so converted debate into barricades explains.

The Austrian Empire, where the system cracked

Vienna in March 1848 has been the 4 mark question three times and Metternich's flight a 6 mark question.

Rioting by students, encouraged by news from Paris. Students and liberals wanted basic freedoms and a liberalisation of the regime. A petition was handed to the Emperor demanding a constitution and freedom of the press. Troops were called out and shots were fired. The Diet of Lower Austria demanded the resignation of Metternich, the Chancellor and Foreign Minister, who was considered the symbol of repression. The Austrian armies could not crush the rioting because they were thinly spread around the Empire. Metternich resigned and fled to London. Ferdinand I appointed a liberal government under Count Kolowrat and agreed to a constitution.

Metternich's own reasons for running, in Cambridge's marking: he was blamed for the repressive policies of the Habsburg government and feared he would be killed, and there was a conspiracy inside the Imperial court to force his resignation.

1. an empire policing five nationalities with one thin army
2. students riot in the capital
3. no troops to spare
4. the architect of repression flees and the rest of the Empire reads it as permission

That last clause is the whole reason the Austrian Empire matters more than its size suggests. Metternich's fall is why Milan, Venice, Budapest, Prague and Berlin all moved within weeks.

Hungary, the most examined national revolution

Hungary is the single most examined country in this Key Question at 4 mark level. Learn Kossuth and the March Laws properly.

The grievances before 1848, as Cambridge lists them: most nobles in the Hungarian Diet were Magyar; people were unhappy that Magyar was the official language; minorities such as the Serbs and Croats had their own languages; taxation was not fairly applied and nobles were exempt; and many people in Hungary actually preferred the Austrians in Vienna to the Magyars. Against Austria, the complaints were censorship and repression, German as the official language, no Hungarian influence over politics, and an economy run in the interests of Austria.

Kossuth, in Cambridge's own words, was a Hungarian nobleman and lawyer who became governor-president of the Kingdom of Hungary during the revolution of 1848 to 1849, a brilliant speaker who inspired people into action.

His demands to the Hungarian Diet in March 1848: freedom of the press; a National Guard; annual parliamentary sessions; the freeing of political prisoners; equality before the law; abolition of the nobility's exemption from taxes; and members of the government to be appointed by parliament.

The March Laws, also examined as the April Laws, made the Hungarian government responsible to the Hungarian Diet in Budapest rather than to the Imperial Government in Vienna, abolished serfdom, introduced religious freedom, abolished press censorship, established equality before the law and created the National Guard. Cambridge describes their purpose two ways in the same mark scheme, as turning feudal Hungary into a constitutional monarchy and as turning it into a parliamentary democracy. Either is credited.

The German states, where the demands were made and then conceded

Berlin in March 1848: a demonstration by workers in the palace square, protests about pay and working conditions, many of the demonstrators self-employed craftsmen, stones thrown at the troops, barricades, serious street fighting and deaths, and citizens' deputations asking the King to make political concessions.

The revolutionaries' demands, examined as a 4 mark question: constitutional government, freedom of speech and the press, a parliament, the right to vote, the right to speak directly to the King, better living and working conditions, and the merging of the Prussian states into Germany.

Frederick William IV's response is the one thing to get exactly right, because his changes of mind run through the whole Key Question. Cambridge's sequence: he first planned to repress the unrest with the army; he recalled the troops; he supported German unification; he formed a liberal government; he called a national assembly; he began work on a new constitution; then later in the year he ordered the army to reoccupy Berlin and dissolved the assembly.

Italy in 1848, on the Key Question 1 scale

Why the existing regimes were challenged, as Cambridge explains it: Austria controlled much of northern Italy and this foreign rule was very unpopular; there was a permanent Austrian army that was hated; Italians paid unpopular taxes that Austria then increased and used to finance other parts of the Austrian Empire. Add crop failure in 1846 and 1847, high food prices and starvation, the reforms introduced by the Pope in Rome, and the Statuto issued by Charles Albert in 1847, which encouraged people to hope for reform.

Sicily moved first, in January 1848, centred on Palermo, with a constitution and a parliament established and Vincenzo Fardella elected President. Charles Albert declared war on Austria, was defeated at the Battle of Novara and abdicated in favour of his son Victor Emmanuel II. Garibaldi returned to Italy, was rejected by Charles Albert, led his followers into Lombardy to help the new government in Milan, won at Luino and Morazzone, then took charge of the defence of Rome against the French siege before withdrawing to San Marino.

Pope Pius IX is the figure who moves furthest. He had a reputation for liberalism, freed political prisoners, ended press censorship and issued a new constitution, and liberals believed he wanted an Italy ruled by Italians and free from foreign interference. He then protested at an Austrian garrison in the Papal States, and in his Allocution of April 1848 he denounced the war against Austria and said he did not want to be the leader of any Italian confederation. He fled Rome when the Roman Republic was declared, took refuge in the Kingdom of Naples, and returned in 1850 after the French had defeated the Republic.

5. Focus point: did the revolutions have anything in common

Three of the twenty six 10 mark questions ask this directly, phrased as how different the European revolutions were, whether the revolutionaries had different aims from each other, and whether their aims were more similar than different. A fourth asks how similar the reasons for failure were. It is the classic Cambridge "how far" shape and it is answerable in a fixed structure: same, different, then a judgement about which level of description you are working at.

What genuinely was shared

• Timing and trigger. The same recession and the same harvest failures, and then the same demonstration effect from Paris.
• Method. Urban crowds, barricades, petitions and demands for a constitution, in Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Milan alike.
• The liberal core. Freedom of speech and of the press, an elected assembly, a constitution and a wider franchise were demanded almost everywhere.
• The first response of governments. Rulers conceded quickly while frightened. Frederick William IV recalled his troops and promised a constitution. Ferdinand I accepted a liberal government. Charles Albert granted a constitution to Piedmont. Cambridge's own summary of what went wrong is that demands were initially agreed to and then power was regained.
• The outcome. Almost everywhere the old rulers came back.

What was not shared

• The national demand did not exist everywhere. In France it was absent. In Hungary and northern Italy it was independence from Austria. In Germany and Italy it was unification. Those are three different projects.
• Monarchy. In France the king was toppled and a republic proclaimed. In Prussia the king survived and later crushed the revolution. In Italy Charles Albert stayed and led it.
• Revolutionaries fought each other. The sharpest example Cambridge gives is Hungary: Kossuth believed Croat and Slovak nationalism had no place in the new Hungary and told the minorities they would get neither independence nor self-government, and the Croats reacted by invading Magyar territory with secret Austrian support. Two nationalisms in the same revolution, on opposite sides.
• Class. In France the split was between the bourgeoisie and the radicals, and it turned violent in June. Liberals in many places could not support the more radical ideas of other protestors, and some wanted economic reform where others wanted political reform.

1. a shared trigger and a shared method
2. but incompatible aims underneath
3. so the revolutions rose together and then fell separately

That sentence is a Level 5 judgement on this focus point. It answers "how far" rather than listing.

6. Focus point: why most of the revolutions failed

Four of the twenty six 10 mark questions are about failure, including two that name a person to blame, Frederick William IV in Germany and Kossuth in Hungary. Cambridge's mark schemes group the causes into two families, and a balanced part (c) usually runs one against the other.

Family one: the old order was stronger, and it recovered

Cambridge's own exemplar for a shared cause of failure is the strength of the conservative forces, who had the military on their side, and it names three theatres in one sentence: in France General Cavaignac led the National Guard to put down the rebellion; in Italy the Austrian army defeated the revolutionaries; in Hungary the Austrian and Russian armies defeated the Hungarians.

The Hungarian case is the clearest. The Austrians asked the Russians for help, the Russians had a huge army, Kossuth's supporters were outnumbered and inexperienced, and Kossuth's forces could not resist the troops of Tsar Nicholas I. Kossuth fled after the surrender.

Vienna in October 1848 shows the same recovery in miniature and has been set as a 4 mark question. Austrian soldiers refused to fight against the revolutionaries in Hungary, workers and students took part in street battles, the ministry of war buildings were stormed, the Austrian Minister of War was lynched by the crowd, the government and Emperor fled and the city council took power. The rioters were trying to stop troops leaving to suppress the Hungarian revolution. Imperial troops besieged the city, retook it, killed two thousand revolutionaries and executed the leaders.

1. concessions granted while the army was distracted
2. the army freed up as the crisis passed
3. concessions withdrawn by the same rulers who granted them

Family two: the revolutionaries defeated themselves

• They were divided. France is the model: the closing of the National Workshops set the working classes against the moderates, and the moderates then wanted the National Guard to put them down. Fear of the crowd pushed the middle classes towards reaction. In Cambridge's words, the reaction was often supported by the middle classes who were terrified by the thought of violent revolution.
• They were regional. Revolutions were often regional and popular enthusiasm was short lived. In France the radicals were strong in Paris but had little support in the countryside, which the April election results and Louis Napoleon's December victory both demonstrated.
• They talked. The Frankfurt Parliament is the standing example, and it has been set at 4, 6 and 10 marks. Cambridge's list of its weaknesses: no experience of a parliamentary system, a weak chairman, no party discipline, poor day-to-day organisation, representation limited to the learned and professional classes with nobles, wage earners and the business sector left out, and delegates split over whether Austria should be included. Its president, Heinrich von Gagern, supported unification but insisted the Parliament first needed the agreement of the rulers, who were highly reactionary.
• They depended on rulers who were only ever frightened. Cambridge's own explanation of the Frankfurt failure is that the German rulers supported the Parliament while they feared losing their power and thought opposing it would provoke worse, and withdrew support the moment order was restored.

The single most examined moment of failure

In April 1849 the Frankfurt Parliament offered the position of constitutional monarch of Germany to Frederick William IV, and he refused. Cambridge's Paper 2 background information puts it plainly: he rejected it on the grounds that the Parliament had no right to offer it to him. His own words, printed as a Paper 2 source, call it a crown "moulded out of the dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyalty and treason", and argue that he could not accept without "the voluntary agreement of the crowned princes and free states". Elsewhere Cambridge records him saying the offer came from "the gutter".

Why it mattered, as Cambridge marks it: it showed the powerlessness of the Frankfurt Parliament and caused its disintegration; it showed that the princes counted and a parliament did not; it showed that revolution could not be brought about by parliamentary means; and it meant the effective end of the revolution. In the summer of 1849 what was left of the Parliament was dispersed by troops.

1. a crown offered by an elected assembly
2. refused because it came from the people and not the princes
3. the assembly stripped of the one thing it had, legitimacy
4. dispersal by soldiers within months

Answering the "who was to blame" version

When Cambridge names a person, the other side of the argument is always the structural one, and the mark schemes say so.

• Frederick William IV. For: he encouraged the revolution and then changed his mind, and his refusal of the crown made failure certain. Against: the revolutionary movement was already divided and unable to agree its aims, and the princes who first backed the Parliament changed their minds when the revolutions died down.
• Kossuth. For: he excluded the groups who might have helped him, telling the Croats and Slovaks there was no question of independence, and they invaded. Against: the forces ranged against him were overwhelming once Austria brought in Russia.

7. Focus point: did the revolutions change anything

This is the focus point that carries the Key Question, and the papers know it. Fourteen of the twenty six 10 mark questions are a version of it, phrased as whether the revolutions were a failure, brought little change, achieved very little, did not achieve their aims, or simply how important they were. If you prepare one focus point properly, prepare this one.

The structure that reaches the top band is short term against long term. Cambridge's own exemplars run exactly that way.

The case that they changed nothing

Absolute monarchy was re-established in Germany, Austria and Italy, and in France the revolution ended with a hereditary emperor, which was the opposite of what the revolutionaries wanted. Everywhere liberal and national demands were lost. Military repression put down the risings. The Austrians restored control in Italy and those fighting for Italian unification got nowhere. Promises of liberal reform were withdrawn. In Germany the liberals and nationalists met to draft a constitution and failed, and Prussian attempts to lead a united Germany were quashed by Austria. In Hungary the revolution was crushed, the country was put under brutal martial law, the Imperial Government cancelled many of the reforms, German was made the official language and Hungary was ruled directly from Vienna.

France is the sharpest version. The demonstrators of February wanted real reform; the government that emerged was too conservative for them; unemployment grew; the June rising was put down by the army; Louis Napoleon won the December election with monarchist support, later dissolved the National Assembly and made himself Emperor. The Second Republic lasted only until 1852, and one of Louis Napoleon's acts was to send an army to restore the Pope to Rome. A revolution against a king ended with an emperor.

The case that they changed a great deal

Things that survived. In France every man aged 21 and over got the vote, the number of voters rising to well over 8 million, and universal male suffrage was kept. In Prussia the new constitution was kept, including an elected assembly. In Austria feudalism was abolished. In Sardinia the constitution of March 1848 was kept, and Cambridge notes that Charles Albert granted a constitution to the people of Piedmont-Sardinia.

Hungary, over twenty years. Cambridge's own exemplar: the brief period of Magyar rule was not in vain, because by 1867 Magyar was the official language of Hungary, the Diet had regained much of its old importance, the March Laws had been accepted and Hungary was an equal partner with Austria.

Ideas that did not go away. Nationalism grew much stronger and, in Cambridge's phrase, was not killed off for good. In Italy the revolutions stimulated demands for independence and unification and showed that Austrian power could be questioned and even defeated. Within two decades both Italy and Germany had made significant steps towards unification and independence. In Germany the very existence of the Frankfurt Parliament as a body representing all of Germany was a step forward and meant the idea of a united Germany would not go away; Prussia had introduced a constitution, so the king now had to rule with checks on him.

The old order was shown to be fragile. Several of the old regimes fell easily, which showed they would not be strong in the future.

1. the revolutions failed as events
2. but the ideas, the constitutions and the memory of monarchs conceding under pressure survived
3. so the twenty years after 1848 were fought on ground the revolutions had cleared

Building the answer

The trap here is a chronological narrative that stops in 1849 and says "so they failed". The examiners' one recorded comment on this Key Question is exactly that fault. The fix is mechanical: put a date after 1849 in the second half of your answer. By 1867 for Hungary, by 1871 for Italy and Germany, 1852 for the end of the French Republic. A judgement that distinguishes short term defeat from long term consequence is doing the work Level 5 asks for.

8. What the papers actually ask

Twenty six of the forty eight available Paper 1 mark schemes for 2018 to 2024 set Question 1 on this Key Question, which is seventy eight individual question parts. The questions repeat in families. Learn the family, not the individual question.

Where the 4 mark question comes from

Hungary is the single likeliest 4 mark subject on this Key Question. Cambridge has asked "Who was Kossuth?" outright.

The 6 mark families

Always beginning Why, and always wanting two explained reasons.

• Why the French monarchy fell, set four times in seven years: why Louis Philippe was unpopular by 1848, why he abdicated in February 1848, why he was overthrown in February 1848. Also why the reform banquets mattered, why the June Days took place, why violence erupted in Paris in June, why the Second Republic was formed.
• Why there was support for revolutionary ideas, set with the country swapped: in France, in Prussia, in Hungary. Also why there was much support for liberalism in Europe in 1848, why there was support for liberal ideas in much of Europe by 1848, why nationalism posed a revolutionary threat, why many parts of Europe faced the threat of revolution, why many countries across Europe were facing revolutionary threats.
• Why the German revolution went nowhere: why the Frankfurt Parliament failed, why Frederick William IV's refusal of the Imperial German crown mattered, why the 1848 revolutions brought little change to Germany, why the events of 1848 to 1849 left Austria and not Prussia as the dominant force in Germany, why nationalism had grown in influence in Germany by 1848.
• Why the Austrian Empire cracked: why there was a revolution in Hungary in 1848, why Metternich fled Vienna in March 1848.
• Why the Italian regimes were challenged: why there were challenges to the existing regimes in Italy in 1848, why Pope Pius IX turned against the 1848 revolutions in Italy, why Charles Albert's actions in 1848 to 1849 were important for Italy.

The 10 mark families

Note what is missing from that table. There is no family of questions asking you to narrate a revolution. Every 10 mark shape is a verdict.

9. Paper 2 uses this Key Question too

Paper 2 sets one document question on a prescribed topic taken from the Core content, and the prescribed topic changes each series. For 2027 the November nineteenth century prescribed topic is "Were the revolutions of 1848 important?", printed in the syllabus in those exact words. For the 2027 March exam, India only, it is Key Question 3, and for the June exam Key Question 5. For 2028 the Option A topics are Key Question 2 twice and Key Question 6 in November.

So for the November 2027 series this revision earns marks on two papers. It does not earn them the same way. Paper 1 carries no source marks at all and Paper 2 is 80 per cent source work, so the content below is your Paper 2 background knowledge, not your Paper 2 technique.

Two past Paper 2 papers in the 2018 to 2024 corpus set an 1848 topic, and both are worth working through as practice.

• March 2018, Paper 22: "Did the 1848 revolutions in Germany achieve anything?" The sources include two historians writing in 1946 and 1948 who disagree about whether German liberalism ever recovered, a German cartoon of March 1848 showing Frederick William IV telling the revolutionaries he wants to lead the movement, a speech in the Frankfurt Parliament by Johann Gustav Droysen arguing that the German question was a question of power between Prussia and Austria, Frederick William's own April 1849 refusal of the crown, a Prussian government statement of January 1849, and a drawing of the Württemberg army confronting the last members of the Frankfurt Parliament in Stuttgart in June 1849.
• March 2024, Paper 22: "Did Frederick William IV of Prussia support reform?" Sources include an account of the crowd outside the royal palace on 16 March 1848 and a letter from a leading industrialist and liberal to his son dated 18 March 1848.

10. Judgement sentences, and the mistakes that are specific to this topic

The general shapes, what separates a Level 2 identification from a Level 4 explanation and how to build a part (c) that reaches the top band, are in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes. What follows is the same move made about 1848, because a judgement has to be about something.

Judgement sentences that fit this Key Question

Never write that there are arguments on both sides. State a position and attach a reason:

• "The revolutions failed as events and succeeded as precedents, because within twenty years the demands they made were being met by the governments that had crushed them."
• "They were more similar in how they began than in what they wanted, because a shared harvest failure produced simultaneous risings with incompatible aims."
• "The old order won because it kept its armies, not because the revolutionaries lacked support, and Vienna in October shows both at once."
• "Liberalism explains why people were angry and the recession explains why they moved in 1848, so the economic cause matters most for the timing and the political cause most for the demands."
• "Frederick William IV made the failure certain rather than causing it, because a parliament that had to ask permission from princes was already powerless before he refused the crown."

Faults that are specific to this content

The faults that apply to any question on the paper, overwriting part (a), listing instead of explaining, one-sided part (c) answers and finishing without a judgement, are in the How Cambridge marks History 0470 Paper 1 notes. These are the ones that belong to 1848.

• Describing the revolution instead of judging it. This is the only comment a Principal Examiner report has recorded on this Key Question, from June 2018: candidates described the events of the actual revolution rather than analysing its success and failure. Given that fourteen of the twenty six 10 mark questions ask about success or failure, this fault costs more marks here than anywhere else in Option A.
• Generalising away the country and the date. The same report notes that some candidates answered in very general terms only, and that points made need to be specific to the era and country given in the question. "People wanted freedom" earns nothing. "The March Laws made the Hungarian government answerable to the Diet in Budapest rather than to Vienna" is a mark.
• Treating 1848 as one revolution. It was several, in several countries, with different aims and different endings. A question about the revolutions across Europe needs at least two countries in it.
• Drifting into unification. Answers that reach Cavour, Plombières, Bismarck or the Zollverein have left this Key Question. Those belong to Key Questions 2 and 3.
• Ignoring the date limit. A question about 1848 is marked to 1848 and a question about 1848 to 1849 is marked to 1849. The exception is the "did they change anything" family, where later evidence is exactly what the question is inviting: 1852, 1867 and 1871 all earn credit there.
• Confusing the two German assemblies. The Frankfurt Parliament was a national assembly for all Germany meeting at Frankfurt. The Prussian assembly elected in Berlin was drawing up a Prussian constitution. Cambridge's own mark schemes list them as separate bodies.
• Making Frederick William IV consistent. He is not. He planned repression, then recalled the troops, then supported unification and a constitution, then reoccupied Berlin and dissolved the assembly, then refused the crown. The changes of mind are the answer to several questions, so do not smooth them out.

11. Quick revision

• The Key Question is a verdict question. Fourteen of the twenty six 10 mark questions since 2018 ask whether the revolutions achieved anything.
• It is always Question 1 on Paper 1, in all twenty six papers that set it. Question 1 alternates between this Key Question and Italian unification, so revise both.
• It is the Paper 2 prescribed topic for Option A in November 2027.
• Causes, long term: liberalism, driven by a middle class with economic weight and no political power, wanting a constitution, a vote, and freedom of speech and the press; nationalism, meaning independence from Austria in Hungary and northern Italy, and unification in Germany and Italy.
• Causes, short term: crop failures, particularly 1846, and the recession of 1846 to 1847, producing unemployment, high prices and middle class bankruptcies across Europe at the same time. Then contagion from Paris.
• France: economic depression 1846 to 1847; reform banquets of 1847 to 1848 as the only legal criticism; Guizot banned them; 22 February march and barricades; 23 February Guizot dismissed and fifty two shot; Louis Philippe abdicated in favour of his grandson; Lamartine proclaimed the Second Republic; National Workshops, right to work, death penalty for political offences abolished; votes for all men over 21, over 8 million voters; Workshops closed 21 June; June Days crushed by Cavaignac; Louis Napoleon elected in December, Emperor by 1852.
• Austrian Empire: March 1848 student rioting in Vienna encouraged by Paris; petition to Ferdinand I for a constitution and a free press; the Diet of Lower Austria demanded Metternich go; the army was thinly spread; Metternich fled to London; Kolowrat's liberal government. October 1848: a second Vienna rising, the Minister of War lynched, the city besieged and retaken, two thousand killed.
• Hungary: Kossuth, nobleman, lawyer, governor-president; his March demands to the Diet; the March or April Laws made the government answerable to the Diet in Budapest, abolished serfdom and censorship and created a National Guard; Kossuth excluded Croat and Slovak nationalism and the Croats invaded with secret Austrian backing; Francis Joseph revoked the April Laws; Kossuth declared an independent republic; Austria called in Russia; Kossuth fled; martial law, reforms cancelled, German imposed, rule direct from Vienna. By 1867 Magyar was the official language, the Diet had recovered and the March Laws were accepted.
• German states: Berlin March 1848, workers in the palace square, barricades, deaths, concessions; Frederick William IV recalled the troops, promised a constitution and unification, then reoccupied Berlin and dissolved the assembly; the Frankfurt Parliament met from May 1848, aimed at a constitution for a unified Germany, split over Austria, was led by Gagern and represented only the professional classes; April 1849 it offered the crown to Frederick William IV, who refused it as coming from the princes' inferiors; dispersed by troops in summer 1849. Prussia kept a constitution and an elected assembly.
• Italy in 1848 to 1849: Sicily rose in January, Palermo, a constitution, Fardella; the Statuto of 1847; Pius IX's liberal start and his Allocution of April 1848 refusing to lead a confederation or fight Austria; Charles Albert declared war, lost at Novara, abdicated for Victor Emmanuel II; Garibaldi at Luino and Morazzone and then defending Rome; the Roman Republic and the Venetian republic destroyed; the Piedmontese constitution survived.
• Why they failed: the old order kept its armies and recovered, Cavaignac in France, the Austrians in Italy, Austria and Russia in Hungary; revolutionaries divided by class and by nationality; risings were regional and enthusiasm short lived; rulers conceded while frightened and withdrew concessions once safe; the Frankfurt Parliament talked and waited for permission.
• What survived: universal male suffrage in France, the Prussian constitution, the abolition of feudalism in Austria, the Piedmontese constitution, the Hungarian settlement of 1867, and the idea of a united Germany and a united Italy.

12. Where Cambridge's own materials disagree

Three places in the 0470 corpus contradict themselves on this Key Question. Do not try to reconcile them and do not build an answer on the disputed detail. Nothing here is needed for full marks.

When Pius IX was elected. The June 2018 Paper 11 question itself refers to "the election of a new Pope in 1846". The March 2019 Paper 12 mark scheme, marking a question on the Pope's actions, credits the point "He was elected Pope in 1848". Both are Question 1 material and they cannot both be right. Write about what he did, not about when he was elected.

Who ruled Sicily. The November 2020 Paper 12 mark scheme, on events in Sicily in January 1848, credits "Sicilians rebelled against their French rulers" and "Messina remained loyal to France" in the same list as "There was a popular uprising as Bourbon rule was widely hated". Say the uprising was against the existing rulers and was centred on Palermo, and leave the nationality out.

When Hungary surrendered. The November 2023 Paper 13 mark scheme prints an exemplar saying "The Hungarians had to surrender in August 1848", while the same mark scheme lists Kossuth declaring an independent republic after Francis Joseph became Emperor, which is later. The question itself is about the revolution of 1848 to 1849. No other mark scheme in the corpus dates the surrender. Write that Austria brought in Russian troops and the revolution was crushed, without the month.

Where these facts come from

Taken from Cambridge's own published 0470 materials, meaning the syllabus for 2027 and 2028, the forty eight Paper 1 mark schemes for March, June and November 2018 to 2024, the Paper 2 question papers, and the eighteen Principal Examiner reports on file:

the Key Question, focus point and specified content wording; the option title and the six Key Questions of Option A; the Paper 2 prescribed topics for 2027 and 2028; the question counts and question numbers in section 2 and section 8; the examiner report silence on Questions 1 to 4; every named person, law, date, place and figure in sections 3 to 7 and 11, including the 1846 crop failures, the 1846 to 1847 recession, the reform banquets of 1847 to 1848, the fifty two shot in Paris, the votes for all men over 21 and the figure of over 8 million voters, the National Workshops and their closure on 21 June, over 100 000 people employed by them and almost 200 000 building barricades, Cavaignac and the June Days, Louis Napoleon's December election and the Second Republic ending in 1852, Metternich's flight and Count Kolowrat, the two thousand killed in Vienna in October 1848, Kossuth's March demands and the March or April Laws, Francis Joseph revoking them, Russian intervention, the Hungarian settlement of 1867, the Berlin rising of March 1848 and Frederick William IV's sequence of actions, the aims and weaknesses of the Frankfurt Parliament and Gagern's position, the April 1849 offer and refusal of the crown and Frederick William's own words, the dispersal of the Parliament in summer 1849, the Statuto of 1847, Pius IX's reforms and his Allocution of April 1848, Charles Albert's war and defeat at Novara, Garibaldi at Luino and Morazzone and at Rome, Sicily in January 1848 and Vincenzo Fardella; and the two Paper 2 topics described in section 9 with their sources.

Not verified from the 0470 corpus, and therefore left out of the body above. Check these against your own textbook before quoting them as precise, and do not invent them in an exam:

• the exact dates on which Metternich resigned, the Frankfurt Parliament first met, and the Hungarians surrendered
• the year of the Battle of Novara and the year Pius IX was elected, both of which the corpus itself disputes or omits
• casualty figures for the June Days in Paris, and for the Berlin street fighting
• the names of the Austrian commanders in Hungary and the Croat leader who invaded Magyar territory
• the term "Springtime of Peoples", which appears nowhere in the corpus
• the number of German states, the membership figures of the Frankfurt Parliament, and the date it was finally dissolved rather than dispersed

None of those is needed for a top answer, which is why they are named here rather than asserted above.

Not the topic you were looking for? Describe what you are stuck on in your own words and we will take you to the notes that answer it.