Painted in 1848 by Philipp Veit, for the front of the plenary hall of Paulskirche. The woman is known as Germania, and is considered the German national symbol. She represents nationhood and is a key element of the new German nationstate. She is adorned in the German national flag which, before 1848, could not be flown publicly because it implied there was a nation and popular sovereignty beyond the individual monarchs. From 1848, however, the flag represented national unity and a new national identity. Black represented unity, red justice, and gold freedom -- all of which were promised in the 1848 Constitution. Germania was a product of 1848; produced for its National Assembly and providing a visual representation of the revolutionaries' demands, it is clear that the mid-nineteenth-century understanding of German national identity was forged in the Revolution.

The Deutsche Volksverein für Freiheit und Recht (The German Folk Society for Freedom and Rights) created this flag during the 1848 Revolution. It represented their commitment to its ideals and the role of the populace in the struggle for political rights. The crossed swords and Iron Cross in the centre hearkened back to the Napoleonic Wars, in which Germany fought for liberation and sought unity and nationhood. The Iron Cross later came to be associated with militarism and was adopted by the Nazis, but it did not have such connotations in the mid-nineteenth century. After the failure of the 1848 Revolution, the society was abolished. It was not until 1898 that the flag came back into use, when it was adopted by the Vorwärts (Forwards) workers' society. Fifty years later and under very different circumstances, the flag continued to symbolise political participation and representation. The sentiment of the Revolution had a long and strong influence on German politics.

Narhalla is the name of the Mainzer Carnevalsverein’s journal that was published every week of carnival season from about the beginning of the year. It was first established in 1841 by Dr Franz Weißt and printed by Johann Wirth and ran until its ban in 1848. Carnival in Mainz, also called Mainzer Karneval, only emerged in 1838, 15 years after the customary practice was reformed into an associational and communicative practice involving Cologne’s old and new elites, i.e. mayors, merchants, professors, doctors, lawyers. Mainz is situated further south down the River Rhine and fell under administration of the Dukedom of Hesse-Darmstadt, unrelated to the Kingdom of Prussia. Mainz’ revolutionary past was also widely different to that of Cologne. In the March 1793 Mainz propagated itself a republic. This short republican and French occupation was ended by Prussian armies besieging Mainz in July 1793. Associational carnival maintained its broad structure established by the Cologne bourgeois, but incorporated traits unique to the people and location of Mainz. Carnival in Mainz is until now generally referred to as literary-political carnival in contrast to Cologne’s exhilarating version. The carnival journal Narhalla shaped the literary-political theme of carnival. Compared to earlier carnival journals in the 1820s, it was much more tailored towards critique of the lacking freedom of press by pointedly ridiculing the censoring of parts of its issues (see page two of issue 2 ‘Warnung! An dieser verdächtigen Stelle ist ein unvorsichtiger Witz umgebracht worden’ (Warning! In this spot a careless joke has been killed.’). The literary spectrum covered prose, poetry, verses, caricatures, advertisements, announcements and essays enriched by a variety of illustrations that provide valuable political as well as societal commentary in times of censorship and small avenue for artistic, critical expression. Significant is the presence of Francophile writing including admiration for French literature and the French language, alluding to a tension between administration and the populace. Issue 2 of 1848, for example, had illustrations portraying married life through affectionate dealings or even lewd commentary. The depiction of women in Narhalla is significant compared to Cologne’s or other carnival journals. Mainz, namely, allowed women to partake in the carnival celebrations be it through writing or in associational events, while Cologne’s carnival until this day remains a male dominated endeavour. Class or police conflict were also depicted in commentary on dress and noise. Diamond or chequered patterns of dress allude to fools’ dress, as well as headgear like the fool’s hat or antlers. Eight issues were published in 1848. The last was published after the successful barricade fights in Berlin and the establishment of a free press, which was thoroughly celebrated in essays, mock obituaries and caricatures (not all pages of this issue are depicted here). Unique for the 1848 was the cover, especially the title made out of miniature figures (men and women) in carnival costumes forming the letters of Narhalla. This humanesque and carnivalesque depiction suggests a sense of community, an association of individuals, forming a whole, as if carnival is an organic whole formed by individual members’ participation. Such an illustration may allude to the growing sense of German nationalism or rather a form of German identity that was shaped by associational carnival leading up to the 1848 revolution. The depiction of different characters forming the Narhalla also relates to Ludwig I, King of Bavaria’s cultural monument called Walhalla, were marble heads of important German-speaking personalities throughout history were exhibited. Narhalla in this case could on the refer to the institution, the space for carnival events and balls bringing together fools and celebrating their foolishness – a reversal of reality.

Following the barricade fights in Berlin, a militia was established to ensure public security. Military involvement was to be prevented until absolutely necessary. As defence against overbearing monarchy and thus military it understood itself as democratic and urban-national organisation and was established all over German states in the wake of the brutal suppression of the Berlin protests and barricades. Koblenz’ militia was formed in late March with a statute published in the city’s newspaper. The first paragraph sets out the foundation of the militia, the honour, justice and good will of its members to guard persons and property. (‘Statut’ in StAK KH 127) Articles 2-4 cover the organisational aspects, while 5 and 7 enshrine the wearing of both national and city colours, 6 and 8 define what weapons are carried, where and by whom. A national army was yet to be decided upon in Frankfurt, and remained a divisive aspect between national assembly and Prussian King between 1848-50. Militias filled the vacuum, but the adherence to National Assembly’s decrees on militias created conflict with Prussian and administrative orders locally. This resulted in disobedience against the authorities' orders in Koblenz. The Koblenz Bürgerwehr was disbanded in November 1848, nine days after the Berlin one.

Three documents concerning the uprising in Madrid in March 1848, protesting against the imperfect constitutional regime established in 1845. The 1848 French Revolution had a major impact across Europe even if some regions (Germany, Italy, the Habsburg Empire) were more affected than others. In Spain, restlessness started to spread from the very moment the news from Paris arrived. Conservative liberals in power immediately feared subversion, violence, and anarchy, and on 27 February they presented a draft bill to suspend habeas corpus. Progressive liberals were divided between those who supported the government and those who shared with the democrats a positive view of the events, which were seen as an inevitable consequence of the practices of a reactionary government. Some republicans even traveled to Paris to ask the Gouvernement provisoire for support. But the mission was unsuccessful. The French capital also witnessed the creation of a Comité démocratique espagnol which apparently sent instructions to revolutionary activists in several Spanish towns. On 13 March, the draft bill to suspend habeas corpus was approved, and a few days later parliamentary sessions were suspended. Revolutionary groups composed of progressive liberals, democrats, and republicans merged for a common conspiracy and planned an insurrection on 26 March. Things did not go as planned, as authorities were aware of the plot and had mobilised the army. Some conspirators decided to abort the plan, but others stuck to it and rushed to the streets. They were easily repressed. Two hundred were killed and there were more than one hundred arrests.

18 March 1848 Coraggio dimostrato dai Veneziani pella libertà e prime vittime del 18 Marzo 1848 The courage shown by the Venetians struggling for liberty and the first victims of March, 18, 1848 The Venice Revolution began on 17 March 1848, as soon as news from Vienna of the Hungarian Revolution and of Metternich's fall reached the city in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, which had been under Austrian rule since 1814. When the news arrived, the crowd claimed and obtained freedom for Daniele Manin, Nicolò Tommaseo, and other political prisoners. On Saturday 18 March, there was an escalation of urban violence and the joyful atmosphere evaporated when late in the morning a crowd of bourgeois, among them students from Padua University, and workers gathered in St. Mark Square. As soon as the Austrian soldiers arrived, people started breaking stones from the pavement to use as weapons against the troops. Officers ordered the latter to fire and eight Venetians were killed (among them two teenager artisans) and nine wounded. The image shows the socially mixed profile of the participants (including young boys), as well as the impressive gesture of a man breaking up stones, in a kind of iconoclastic ritual recalling that captured by H. Vernet in his painting of the barricades in Paris, Rue Soufflot, on 25 June 1848. 18 March 1848 was a turning point on the road toward the Venetian Republic and it was to nurture the myth of Venice's bravery in the revolutionary wave that swept Europe.

In breaching the norms of patriarchal structures of the nineteenth century, a common trope used against female intellectuals was the de-feminised women. Disputing women’s aims to be involved in the political and public sphere through an educated presence, they were seen to lack womanly virtue. These women were critiqued for ignoring their duties as daughters, wives and mothers, and often played on the idea of the subordinate husband, forced to take up the role of the woman of the house. We can see this in the theme of neglect that is apparent in both prints. In the 1848 French satire ‘Women leaving their husbands to look after children while they go to their club’, the print captures the emerging salon culture and female literary spaces that were seen to distract women from their duties. A wife, holding a text on a discourse of women is in conversation with her husband. She instructs ‘Take care of the pot to the fire and my daughter to bed early. If she screams, give her to suckle… With what, missus? With the bottle, you idiot!’. In confronting and challenging their expected duties, the representations offers an insight into the subversion of traditional roles that was becoming more apparent in the nineteenth century.

A depiction of a women's right meeting

The chaotic 'Manifestation Des Femmes', represents a critique of the women's emancipation movements of the era, depicting their demonstrations as the workings of hysterical women. Organised movements of women in France were mooted amongst St-Simonians in the 1830s, but the flourishing of such movements, and their independence from masculine guidance was more a feature of 1848 then at any time previously.

The painting by French realist Honoré Daumier depicts a scene of revolutionary resistance, a crowd of protestors seemingly led by the man in white. It is probable that the scene is a depiction of the 1848 Revolution in Paris, as Daumier was residing in the capital during the violent clashes of the June popular uprising (lasting from 23 to 26 June).

The Great Chartist gathering on Kennington Common on 10 April 1848 was the first time a large outdoor political crowd was captured on camera.In April 2018, to mark the 170th anniversary of the event, Richard Galpin of the Kennington Chartist Project engaged actor Tom Collins to read a transcript of Chartist leader Feargus O’Connor’s speech in which he appealed to the crowd to disperse.It was the toughest speech of his political career as he was a seriously ill old man effectively conceding defeat that day. Listen for the emotion in his voice imploring his audience to continue the struggle for the charter.

Truncheon used by Special Constable on 10 April 1848 on the occasion of the Great Chartist Gathering on Kennington Common, South London. Around 80,000 special constables were sworn-in, most conscripted by their employers to guard their places of work. This might have had the side effect of preventing them from attending the gathering had they so wished. Some refused and lost their jobs as a result. Some were even recompensed financially for the loss of a day’s pay - Thames 'Coal Whippers' (dock workers) were one such example. Most were workers and craftsmen but some were middle-class volunteers, including allegedly Charles Dickens and the future Napoleon III of France. Few, if any truncheons were actually used as the meeting was much smaller than anticipated and entirely peaceful. Many kept them and decorated them as souvenirs later which is how this example probably came to be so clearly marked.