How Accurate is it to Summarise the Period Before 1848 as:
‘The Time when Nothing Happened’?
Bismarck described the era before 1848 as ‘the time when nothing happened’ and to a certain degree it is true, however, a number of key events did occur that had long lasting effects on Germany that would come to hinder, advance and affect the pace and direction of unification.
Friedrich I established Prussia as a kingdom, independent of its previous association as a Polish fief, Prussia expanded its borders massively into neighbouring states. Under Friedrich I Prussia emerged as one of the strongest military and economic powers in Europe proper. The strong economy and growing military reputation lay foundations for a strong, proud and militaristic culture. As a relatively new state it could learn from the mistakes of others and as a large state it could bully and manipulate its neighbours, but it was still a subordinate of Austria in the Holy Roman Empire and nowhere near powerful enough to contend Austria’s seat of dominance. The influence that Prussia gained allowed for a stronger Prussia later, the knowledge that Prussia was vastly superior to its neighbours aided in giving Prussians a sense of self-confidence that allowed them to make the exertive steps towards unifying Germany after 1815.
From the 9th century until 1806, the Holy Roman Empire dominated the German states, a common language and a notably similar culture had developed and bound the member states together as the ‘Germanic states’ of central Europe. Prior to the dismantling of the Empire by Napoleon in 1806, the Empire had been stagnating and its ‘golden years’ had ended, modernisation was almost non-existent and the member states were growing ever more selfish. In addition to this the empire’s armies posed very little resistance to the advancing French army, regardless of having a larger population and greater land area. The Holy Roman Empire remained a target to aim for in regards to attempts to unify for many years after its demise, with artists and proponents of unity portraying its existence as a force for good and prosperity and as a result pride in ‘Germany’ as a whole increased.
Notwithstanding with the relatively recent failures and ineffectiveness of the Empire, the Napoleonic occupation resulted in a wave of nationalism that pushed for a new united Germany, a common hatred of the French was begun, Germans began to think of the war as Germany versus France rather than individual, small states against France- the idea that Germany would be stronger if all states worked together aided with this and the growing sense of hope in response to the ersatz unity left the concept of permanent unification more accessible and possible. In addition to a strong hatred of anything French, A strong sense of xenophobia began, furthering individual national identities.
The breaking-down of social infrastructure amid the chaos led to new ideas of liberalism, nationalism and further ideas of equality. The growth in liberal and almost-socialist ideas resulted in changing attitudes and opportunistic vilification of the outdated feudal-like system of hereditary land ownership and serfdom. The ‘October Edict’ of 1807 freed the Prussian serfs almost 60 years before the Russian Empire did so, with the other German states imitating Prussia after 1815. The acceptance and adoption of these reforms allowed for new levels of liberalism to present themselves and allowed further reforms to be passed later, people were more able to present ideas that would have been dangerous before the Napoleonic invasion.

A great reorganisation and restructuring of the general administration and territorial boundaries of the German states during the Napoleonic occupation, previously consisting of up to 300 free-states, Duchies, Principalities, Kingdoms and groupings of larger states, such as Prussia (itself a union of the Duchy of Prussia and the Margraviate of Brandenburg), the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Austrian Empire, resulted in a province more closely resemblant to modern Germany of 39 states and a federal administration system more efficient and modern in nature. After the Napoleonic wars had ended the new system was retained and nationalistic feelings persisted, albeit in a smaller and more suppressed fashion, some small communities like the Burschenschaften wholeheartedly supported a large-scale unification and persistently pushed for such a unification until 1871, they were not hindered by the memories of the failure of the Holy Roman Empire and youthful optimism allowed for the past to be seen through rose-tinted spectacles.
The German Confederation that existed from 1815 until 1848, was established to administrate the newly-freed German states, it helped with the rebuilding and acclimatisation to a Europe that had been broken by Napoleon. The Confederation was represented and led by the often hereditary heads-of-state of the newly established federal states, and as a result the idealism of such men were strongly conservative. It prevented any significant moves toward unification with strict conservative policies. Prinz von Metternich, the State-Chancellor of the Austrian Empire, was strongly opposed to unification and as the largest state, in terms of existing infrastructure and territorial area, Austria dominated the German Diet and their plans often took priority, bending the other states to their will. The confederation and the earlier restructuring of Germany by Napoleon allowed for a stable and more secure balance of power
The ‘Metternich System’ or the ‘Age of Metternich’ was implemented as part of the ‘Conservative System’, established by Clemens von Metternich and the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh. It was established in response by conservative against the recent calls for radical liberalism. It maintained censorship on a massive scale and suppressed anything deemed radical or liberal. The system reinforced Austrian dominance and suppressed any ideas to the contrary, the confederation and Metternich system gave the Austrian Empire much more power than they had possessed in the original Holy Roman Empire.
At the 1815 Vienna conference, Austria made little changes to its boundaries, whereas Prussia made large land-grabs, and still remained the dominant power. Prussia gained economic dominance and Austria maintained political dominance. The Confederation was confusing in its jurisdiction, Austria and Prussia both held territories outside of the Confederation and foreign powers, such as Great Britain held strong influence over internal states- Hanover was the family seat of the House of Hanover and the Hanoverian monarchs (Georges I, II, III, IV, William IV and Queen Victoria) of Great Britain. Georges I, II and III were the Prinz-Electors of Brunswick-Lüneberg with ties to the Austrian Empire and the House of Habsburg. The conference began the era of ‘Peaceful Dualism’ between Austria and Prussia, in which both parties made advances towards their own ideas for dominance over the German states.
In 1819, representatives of the German Confederation negotiated a set of decrees in the spa town of Carlsbad, they furthered the censorship of the press and expanded on the overall Metternich System: liberal and nationalistic groups were prohibited, including the Burschenschaften, and they restricted the actions of nationalists and therefore restricted actions to encourage the idea of unification on a wider basis. The German Confederation widely opposed unification, Prussia was more interested in furthering its own standing and domestic policy and additionally feared a cultural dilution if another empire were to be established. Austria too opposed unification but it was the threat that a growth in nationalism posed to its own existing empire of non-German states that fuelled it; if nationalism was supported to unite Germany, it would cause disruption among the member states of the empire and spark nationalism for the individual countries that compose it. If made legal or not suppressed, it could topple the entire empire and its infrastructure of internal trade with calls for independence.
A trade Union, the ‘Zollverein’ or ‘German Customs Union’, established in 1833/34 had excluded Austria, showing Prussian preference for a Kleindeutschlösung without Austria and headed by Prussia. By being successful and highly profitable, the loose union showed the benefits of uniting for a common goal but it was seen as by most as plenty and a union of a more concrete nature would be unnecessary, it therefore limited the nationalists’ cause for unification. Prussia greatly benefitted from the union, land gained in the Vienna Congress had been found to be extremely rich in natural resources such as coal and iron (the argument for ‘Coal and Iron’ rather than ‘Blood and Iron’ was founded in the plethora of these resources and subsequent prosperity). The trade among member states was intentionally free and thus greater volumes of resources could be transferred to processing plants.
The success of the Zollverein was strongly related to the Industrial Revolution, Prussia expanded massively in terms of its economy and infrastructure, railways exploded across Germany, almost reaching the level of expansion Britain had achieved. The Zollverein encouraged movement of resources and the new Bessemer process of a purer steel manufacturing process pushed Prussia and the more minor German states to the forefront of industrial production and revolution. The newly gained prosperity and industrial prowess allowed for a greater portion of the national budget to go to the military. A modernised army with state-of-the-art equipment gave Prussia even more power and influence and Prussia was rising as a potential power to rival the Austrian Empire and further strengthened the idea of a Kleindeutschlösung. The idea that the Zollverein strengthened and propelled Prussia to the best candidature for leader of a unified Germany is supported by economic historians Helmut Böhme and Hans Ulrich Wehler, with Bohme having stated that German unification and the foundation of the German empire ‘can no longer be written as part of Otto von Bismarck’s biography’. In contrast to this historians such as Hans-Joachim Voth state that the union actually hindered unification as the new wealth allowed minor states to reinforce their position and consolidate their independence.
Events in 1848 would have serious implications for later unification, the revolutions that spread throughout Europe resulted in widespread reform among the German states, and the previously strong and oppressive conservatism seemed to collapse in coordination with the collapsing power of Metternich. The new pope, Pius IX, was becoming known to be a nationalist and moderate liberalist, this resulted in a clash of ideals- the predominantly Catholic regions of Germany were in conflict over the correct path to be following, their faith or their leader? The indecision caused further weakening of Metternich regardless. In addition to failing crop harvest and rising prices, liberal ideas were growing, a volatile mix, the liberalism that Metternich had long suppressed was growing out of control and boiled-over in the great revolution that ensued. The reforms that followed were often limited and the revolutions short-lived, discussions among liberals showing ideological divisions. After the revolutions had petered-down, conservatives returned to power but carried out promised reforms, seemingly showing signs of the rigid anti-unification and anti-liberalism breaking down. The revolutions showed that suppression of the German people’s beliefs was not the best path to follow if prosperity was the end goal and taught that traditional the uniquely German peoples would require a uniquely German leadership and management style.
The culture that was built in Germany accelerated during the ‘Biedermeier Period’, 1815 to 1848, the name of this period does not refer to the era of time as a whole, but to the particular mood and growing trends that came about as a result of unique circumstances of the time in central Europe.
There were two driving forces for the development of the period. The first was the growing urbanization and industrialization leading to a new urban middle class, which created a new kind of audience for the arts. The second was the political stability prevalent under Clemens Wenzel von Metternich following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The effect was for artists and society in general to concentrate on the domestic and (at least in public) the non-political. Writers, painters, and musicians began to stay in safer territory, and the emphasis on home life for the growing middle-class meant a blossoming of furniture design and interior decorating.
By 1848 the ‘Peaceful Dualism’ between Austria and Prussia (S.J. Lee) accelerated with both states growing more powerful and intimidating in efforts to be the most dominant and legitimate representative of the German states. The dualism did however have the effect of hindering unification, steps made by Prussia to gain power were swiftly and decisively countered by Austria, this is evident in the Erfurt Union of 1850, Prussia had attempted to establish a union in a similar but more advanced manner to the Zollverein, it proved to be a step too far and Austria proved to still have plenty of influence to boycott parliamentary elections and the union was dissolved much to the embarrassment of Prussia. Much like the cold war over a century later, no direct conflict occurred (until the Austro-Prussian war in 1866) the rivalry was fought passively outside of the Austrian and Prussian territories, such as the second Schleswig war. Like the war with the French, the Danish war caused a surge in xenophobia and furthered the idea of a national identity that needed to be protected.
In fine, the period before 1848 (Vormärz-‘Before March’) did not produce any direct steps toward a definitive unification but it not accurate to describe the era as one with no significant progress towards a Germany more prepared and open to unification, such events allowed for the foundations of a stable and more powerful union that, paired with the new Prussian economic and growing military dominance, allowed for a shift in power towards total Prussian dominance. Without such happenings that involved ‘coal and Iron’ (J.M. Keynes) such as the Zollverein, Prussia could not have risen to achieve success via ‘Blood and Iron’ (Bismarck) and later unification with Prussia as the head of a ‘Kleindeutschlösung’.