Worth remembering that the Metropolitan Police was deliberately non-military in a number of ways, to the choice of blue for its uniforms. Pseudo-military police forces were seen as a distinctively continental phenomenon. (Also Peel was beaten to the punch by the City of Glasgow Police, established in 1800.)
Yes, I perhaps should have used England rather than Great Britain to be more precise. As for it's non-military aspects, this to me mitigates, but does not eliminate the fact that a central police force necessarily curtails certain liberties that the English had long enjoyed (in London at least). Even if it was not Peels full intention to use them as force against political disorder, they clearly were used to put down restive action. Now whether a society is willing to tolerate liberty with the potential for sometimes extreme violence vs maintaining social order is a question of judgement.
Interesting thoughts. I think it's fair to observe that the repression of the post-Waterloo decades "helped" to provoke the revolutions of 1848. Some monarchies took the hint from that upheaval and some didn't. Overall, 1815-1848 is a fascinating transitional period on the way from the first bourgeois revolution to the eventual Bolshevik one.
No. I don't think that is the case. The repression was successful. Had the Monarchies of Europe not been ruthless, democratization would have happened much faster. The Revolutions of 1820 where Spain and Naples liberalised (rather bloodlessly) show this to be the case. It was only ruthless military force which restored monarchial authority to these kingdoms. Part of this essay was to hint at the notion that the monarchies of Europe were not authoritarian enough to stamp out liberalism. While the 19th Century monarchies maintained a sense of humanity and tried to fight the idea of liberalism, 20th century dictators felt no compulsion for this, meaning they could take a far more effective tactic: total liquidation of entire classes and peoples who would be *likely* to hold anti-government views. Pol Pots famous dictate to kill off everyone who wore glasses is the most extreme version of this kind of repression.
Interesting article. I wouldn't say I an expert of the topic, but to me it seems that the 19th century despotic measures were only really workable until society was transformed by the spread of the industrial revolution and society became much more urbanized and the massess at the same time gained political consciousness. From this point on a much harder autocratical style was needed.
Interresting, any competent anti-liberal scholar should study and learn from the well intentioned failures of the Monarchies of the past in their fight to preserve order and prevent the spread of the cancer thank you for the article!
Worth remembering that the Metropolitan Police was deliberately non-military in a number of ways, to the choice of blue for its uniforms. Pseudo-military police forces were seen as a distinctively continental phenomenon. (Also Peel was beaten to the punch by the City of Glasgow Police, established in 1800.)
Yes, I perhaps should have used England rather than Great Britain to be more precise. As for it's non-military aspects, this to me mitigates, but does not eliminate the fact that a central police force necessarily curtails certain liberties that the English had long enjoyed (in London at least). Even if it was not Peels full intention to use them as force against political disorder, they clearly were used to put down restive action. Now whether a society is willing to tolerate liberty with the potential for sometimes extreme violence vs maintaining social order is a question of judgement.
Interesting thoughts. I think it's fair to observe that the repression of the post-Waterloo decades "helped" to provoke the revolutions of 1848. Some monarchies took the hint from that upheaval and some didn't. Overall, 1815-1848 is a fascinating transitional period on the way from the first bourgeois revolution to the eventual Bolshevik one.
No. I don't think that is the case. The repression was successful. Had the Monarchies of Europe not been ruthless, democratization would have happened much faster. The Revolutions of 1820 where Spain and Naples liberalised (rather bloodlessly) show this to be the case. It was only ruthless military force which restored monarchial authority to these kingdoms. Part of this essay was to hint at the notion that the monarchies of Europe were not authoritarian enough to stamp out liberalism. While the 19th Century monarchies maintained a sense of humanity and tried to fight the idea of liberalism, 20th century dictators felt no compulsion for this, meaning they could take a far more effective tactic: total liquidation of entire classes and peoples who would be *likely* to hold anti-government views. Pol Pots famous dictate to kill off everyone who wore glasses is the most extreme version of this kind of repression.
Interesting article. I wouldn't say I an expert of the topic, but to me it seems that the 19th century despotic measures were only really workable until society was transformed by the spread of the industrial revolution and society became much more urbanized and the massess at the same time gained political consciousness. From this point on a much harder autocratical style was needed.
Interresting, any competent anti-liberal scholar should study and learn from the well intentioned failures of the Monarchies of the past in their fight to preserve order and prevent the spread of the cancer thank you for the article!
Lol
https://open.substack.com/pub/annanomadicsenglish/p/english-idioms-alexander-and-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5ufgrs