By the summer of 1814, the combined strength
of Europe brought France to its knees. After almost 25 years of war, Europe was finally
at peace. Nobody knew this at the time, but the peace
that was negotiated here and now served as the launching pad for a 99 year run without
a major war between Great Powers. A monumental achievement. After hostilities ceased, the immediate problem
was that nobody quite knew what the world looked like anymore. The preliminary peace agreement that ended
the war in 1814 restored international borders as they had existed in 1792 - with some slight
modifications. But these borders on the map no longer reflected
the reality on the ground. The Duchy of Warsaw a.k.a. Poland existed on paper, but in reality it
was under Russian occupation. All of these tiny German states existed on
paper, but in reality they were under Prussian control. France existed on paper, but in reality it
was under the joint occupation of the Russians, the Austrians, the Prussians, and the British. All that being said, by the summer of 1814,
the Treaty of Paris had been signed, the 1792 borders had been temporarily thrown back into
place, and the war was over. At least for now. The urgent task at hand was to take this hyper-volatile
international system and transform it into something more stable. Most people recognized that the 1792 borders
were no good in the long run, because those borders had lead directly to almost 25 years
of war. The prevailing mood among the victors was
that a well-balanced international system was necessary, one that could resist the kind
of reckless expansionism that the French Revolution had unleashed upon the world. But before we talk about the new system that
was created at this time, let's first discuss the 5 Great Powers as they existed in 1814. This whole period of instability began with
the French Revolution, so let's start with France. Defeated, under enemy occupation, but nevertheless,
still a Great Power. When Napoleon was defeated, the allied victors
imposed a set of peace conditions upon France. All things considered, they were pretty moderate. The first of these called for the restoration
of the Bourbon monarchy from before the Revolution. This brought the 58 year old King Louis XVIII
to the throne, the younger brother to the king that was executed under the Revolution. The second condition for peace was a shiny
new French constitution that would guarantee certain political rights. The third condition was an agreement from
the new king to leave many of the Revolutionary reforms in place. The massive redistribution of wealth and land
that took place under the Revolution was to be mostly upheld by the new regime. So it goes. The old French aristocracy were allowed to
safely return to the country, but they were a shadow of their former selves, and never
again rose to the dominant political position that they had enjoyed in the 18th century. The Restoration of the Bourbon king was intended
to make the conservatives happy. The new constitution was intended to make
the moderate liberals happy. The preservation of the Republican reforms
was intended to make the Revolutionaries happy. It was a big sloppy compromise, and its purpose
was to hold France together so that there was actually a France for the allies to negotiate
with. Despite its recent defeat, France remained
a heavyweight on the continent. They were the second most populous country
in Europe, and still controlled the most potent military force in the world. So long as these facts remained true, France
would remain a Great Power. With this in mind, France's objective going
into the upcoming peace negotiations was, to the extent possible, minimize any further
French concessions or territorial losses. Many European leaders understood that France
would need to opt into any new international system if there was to be lasting peace. Others were simply out for blood. France's job for the immediate future would
be to keep the wolves at bay. To this end, the new king brought in an experienced
hand to serve as his Foreign Minister. Talleyrand. Talleyrand was a French nobleman who got in
on the ground floor of the French Revolution. Through the Revolution he became a politician,
then a diplomat, then an early supporter of Napoleon. Talleyrand served as Napoleon's Foreign Minister
for 8 years, until the two had a falling out and Talleyrand resigned. After this, Talleyrand began telling others
that Napoleon's endless lust for war would bring ruin upon France. In time, he began passing intelligence to
France's enemies, and launched preliminary discussions with them regarding what a post-Napoleonic
France might look like. This relationship made him an obvious choice
to bring back into government after France was defeated. That's the generous way of looking at Talleyrand. The ungenerous way of looking at him is that
he was a cockroach, a survivor, an opportunist. Every time the political winds began to shift,
Talleyrand suddenly found himself on the other side. Every time the French government looked unstable,
Talleyrand found an excuse to be out of the country. When it became clear that France would not
win the war, Talleyrand was the first to abandon ship. Boats! But no matter what you think of him, Talleyrand
became the most powerful person in the French government after the fall of Napoleon, and
yes I am including the King when I say that. His great task as Foreign Minister would be
to keep the wolves at bay, and re-integrate France back into the international order as
a co-equal Great Power. Let's now turn our attention to the 4 Great
Powers that brought Napoleonic France to its knees, starting with the greatest of the Great
Powers and working our way down. As always, the historian Eric Hobsbawm puts
it better than I ever could. Britain "had by 1815 gained the most complete
victory of any power in the entire history of the world, having emerged from twenty years
of war against France as the only industrialized economy, the only naval power, [...] and virtually
the only colonial power in the world." The thing that made Britain the greatest of
the Great Powers was the Royal Navy. Sometimes people talk about "strategic depth,"
which is the idea that during wartime, you want the lines of battle drawn as far from
your major population centers as possible. In 1815, Britain's strategic depth extended
to all the world's oceans and beyond. No country has ever been safer from invasion. The moment of Britain's great victory was
also a moment of great uncertainty for the British monarchy. George III was King, and was unable to enjoy
Britain's newfound prosperity. George probably suffered from a number of
genetic disorders, as well as other things like bipolar disorder and dementia. At times it was quite bad. He was in constant physical pain, and suffered
from hallucinations, delusions, and memory loss. He was occasionally coherent, but not often,
and not for long. In 1811, at the height of the war, the British
Parliament transferred the powers of the monarchy to the King's 48 year old son, which made
him the Prince Regent. Within a few years, the King was no longer
presentable enough to appear in public. Britain's dominant geopolitical position was
all the more impressive considering the fact that of the 5 Great Powers, Britain was only
the 4th most populous. But the picture becomes more clear when you
look at wealth. In 1815, the British people were, on average,
the wealthiest people in the world, at least 50% wealthier than their counterparts on the
continent. This trend would continue for the rest of
the century, by the year 1900 they would be almost twice as wealthy as the average European. This incredible wealth and geopolitical security
helped produce a uniquely robust political culture with public lively debates and an
informed electorate. In 1815, the British Prime Minister was the
Earl of Liverpool, a kind of centrist-conservative. The fact that he was kind of conservative
was actually a huge deal, it was the manifestation of a seismic shift going on within British
politics. Let me explain why. Since the 17th century, there had been two
political factions in the British Parliament. The Whigs, a liberal faction who favoured
giving Parliament more power, and the Tories, a conservative faction who favoured giving
the king more power. England in the 17th century was utterly consumed
by the power struggle between these two factions. They even fought a Civil War over it. Over the course of this struggle, England
swung wildly between having an authoritarian king and no king at all, sending one to the
grave and another into exile. By the end of the 17th century, the question
was settled. The Whigs won. Parliament became the supreme political authority
in England, and the monarchy began to fade into the background. This brought about a really strange period
in British politics, something that will never happen again. For more than 100 years, every British Prime
Minister was a Whig. This period is sometimes called the Whig Supremacy,
or the Whig Domination, sometimes even the Whig Oligarchy. I like the term Whig Oligarchy, because it
gets at one of the key political truths of this period. I described the Whigs as the faction of Parliament,
but it might be more accurate to describe them as the faction of modernity and industrialization. This meant that Whig political power emanated
from cities and business and capital, while Tory political power emanated from aristocratic
landowners and the countryside. At the time, the Whig modernist and pro-business
worldview called for free trade and religious toleration, alongside a slow and steady expansion
of political rights. The Whigs had a general distaste for slavery
in all its forms, even while they continued to participate in the business of slavery. So for more than 100 years, the Whigs dominated
British politics, and for the first 50 or 60 years there are basically no close elections. The Whigs routinely won 300-400 seats in Parliament,
and other factions were lucky to break 100. With such a dominant command over Parliament,
it was only a matter of time before the Whig faction started to develop its own factions,
and then factions within factions, and then factions within factions within factions. This competition between sub-factions actually
made elections competitive again, and in the 1770s Britain elected its first Whig Prime
Minister from the conservative sub-faction. During the French Revolution - perhaps in
reaction to the French Revolution - Britain elected several more conservative Whig Prime
Ministers. But they all took great care to quiet people's
nerves and make it clear that they were all still Whigs, they were all members of one
big political party. One was brave enough to brand himself as an
"Independent Whig," whatever that means, but nobody dared to go any further. So by 1814, Lord Liverpool, another conservative
Whig, was Prime Minister. But he was in an impossible situation. His conservative Whig majority in Parliament
was modest, and his sub-faction seemed to be falling apart. Four men were asked to form government before
him, and all four failed to hold the coalition together. The only reason Liverpool was able to get
the job done was because although he was a conservative Whig, he was on the liberal end
of the conservative Whig spectrum. I spoke of factions within factions within
factions before, I was not joking. As soon as peace was announced, protests started
popping up all over England calling for "Bread or Blood." One publication at the time wrote that "all
the triumphant sensations of national glory seem almost obliterated by general depression." Change was in the air, it was not a good time
to be a conservative politician in Britain. In fact, it seemed entirely possible that
the conservative Whig moment was simply a reaction to the French Revolution, and with
peace, the liberal Whig natural order may just reassert itself. All of that is simply a long winded way of
saying that when it was time to negotiate with the other Great Powers, Liverpool found
himself politically constrained from every direction. If the negotiations went badly, he could not
only be thrown out of government, but the conservative Whig sub-faction could be wiped
out forever. The peace negotiations would be handled by
the British Foreign Secretary, the Viscount of Castlereagh. Castlereagh had strong opinions when it came
to Europe. There were some pro-war nuts in the conservative
Whig sub-faction, but he was not one of them. Castlereagh's view was that every British
intervention on the continent was a colossal policy failure. If he had his way, Britain would never again
send an army to Europe. One of the reasons Castlereagh thought this
way is because he was an imperialist. As Hobsbawm said, Britain at this time was
virtually the only colonial power in the world. Some of the more liberal Whigs had mixed feelings
about that, but Castlereagh didn't. He thought it was awesome! He believed that Britain's future was out
in the colonies, and it would be best for Britain if Europe remained stable and peaceful
and boring. There was some hypocrisy at work here. Peace between the Great Powers meant that
nobody was allowed to touch any of Britain's new conquests. Peace between the Great Powers meant that
Britain could instead maintain its advantage and focus on making money off of its colonies. All that being said, Liverpool and Castlereagh
genuinely wanted peace. The British public had been exhausted by the
war, and if the conservative Whigs wanted to maintain their majority, they were going
to have to show some results. Together, Liverpool and Castlereagh came up
with a list of specific goals for the upcoming negotiations. The most important item was that they wanted
the Netherlands re-formed and strengthened on the English Channel. Two reasons for this. First, they wanted an ally on the continent
to break up any consolidation along the coast. Second, this was historically a natural path
for French expansion, and going forward, the British wanted to cut that off. Along these same lines, they also wanted the
French out of Spain, and Spain restored to its previous borders under its previous monarch. Castlereagh also had instructions to make
sure that the new peace deal would keep Italy free from French influence. Historically, every time the French started
messing around with Italy, it meant that France was becoming way too powerful. No more. Going forward, Italy would be a red line. Castlereagh had other goals as well, but the
big ones were all about containing France. Before the peace negotiations began, Castlereagh
backchanneled his list of priorities to both Austria and Prussia and got from them an unofficial
thumbs up. At least two of the other Great Powers wouldn't
oppose any of Britain's big ticket items, and France wasn't exactly in a place to put
up much of a fight. The only remaining unknown going into the
negotiations was Russia. Nobody quite knew what they wanted or what
their intentions were. When Castlereagh met Tsar Alexander of Russia
for the first time, he wrote to his Prime Minister that he believed that the Russian
monarch was not of sound mind. It's difficult to characterize Tsar Alexander,
because it seems that most of his mental energy was caught up in creating narratives about
what kind of person he was, and not so much on what he did or how he behaved. The thing that confused Castlereagh and confuses
me to be honest is that Alexander had 8 or 10 of these narratives going through his head
at the same time, and wasn't particularly bothered when they contradicted each other. Let me give you some specific examples. Alexander considered himself a true "Enlightenment
Monarch," and told anybody who would listen that he believed in a limited, constitutional
monarchy, and wanted Russia to have elections, and a parliament, and independent courts. At the same time, he ruled Russia as a tyrannical
dictator, which was justified in his mind because he believed that he was God's chosen
instrument on Earth. These two thoughts are not compatible. But Alexander did not see a contradiction. He would simply switch between these two modes
of thought depending on who he was talking to and how he felt that day. Here's another example. Alexander believed himself to be the most
honourable man in Europe, a man who revered ritual, and tradition, and justice. Simultaneously, he believed that God made
him Emperor of Russia for a reason, and if he needed to go back on his word and use brute
force to implement his will, that was all part of God's plan. These contradictory beliefs made Alexander
impossible to deal with. His positions came off as utterly random,
and they could change at any time depending on his mood. He was unpredictable and unreliable and incomprehensible,
particularly bad traits for a diplomat. So naturally, Alexander selected himself to
represent Russia at the post-war peace conference. As the most populous country in Europe, Russia
was a formidable land power. But that inherent strength was undercut by
weak institutions, weak governance, and the fact that Russia remained a technological
backwater. This backwardness had always been a source
of immense insecurity for Russian monarchs, but by 1814, all of that insecurity was gone. Russia had just done the impossible and defeated
Napoleon. At least in their own imagination that's what
happened. The truth is a little more complicated. Years of careful diplomacy had laid the groundwork
for a coordinated attack against the French, and Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia
was simply the catalyst. Had Napoleon been successful in Russia, the
rest of Europe's Great Powers would have just waited for the next opportunity. But when the French started losing to Russia,
most of Europe sprang into action. The plan was for every major European army
to advance on Paris at a steady pace, but to pull back whenever opposed by the French
army. The allies knew that they couldn't defeat
Napoleon on the battlefield, but with all of Europe's armies advancing as one, they
wouldn't have to. Napoleon couldn't be everywhere at once. Even if he won every possible battle, the
allies would still take Paris. The point is that no one country defeated
Napoleon. Every country defeated Napoleon. But Tsar Alexander didn't see it like this. In his mind, it was all his doing. As part of their plan, the allies had developed
lists of key French towns to capture on the way to Paris. The allied armies would need their logistical
support, especially with several French armies coming up behind them. Tsar Alexander was personally in command of
the Russian army, and once he was within spitting distance of French territory, he abandoned
this plan and broke off from his allies and advanced on Paris alone. Alexander later said that this was a matter
of personal honour. He had made a commitment to his people that
there would be Russian soldiers marching down the streets of Paris. Never mind the commitment he made to his allies
to all advance as one. Apparently personal honour can only go so
far. It was Tsar Alexander of Russia who took Paris,
and it was Tsar Alexander who accepted Napoleon's surrender. Since Alexander placed himself in the center
of the action, the fact that he liked to tell conflicting narratives about himself suddenly
became very important to world history. On one hand, Alexander styled himself as the
grand enemy of the French, as Napoleon finally meeting his match on the field of battle. On the other hand, Alexander still believed
that he was the honourable man in Europe. Spin the randomizer and what do we get? Honour. Today, Alexander would treat Napoleon not
as the enemy of Europe, but as his equal. The Emperor of Russia meeting with the Emperor
of France. It was as equals that Alexander negotiated
Napoleon's surrender, and as equals, Alexander gave Napoleon almost everything he wanted. Napoleon would be allowed to retain the title
of Emperor, and would be permitted to remain an independent monarch until his death, ruling
over the small island of Elba off the coast of Italy. He wouldn't be allowed to leave, but on the
island he would be a free man. The allies were apoplectic. This was not what they had agreed to. This put the British in particular in a terrible
position, since they had deliberately never recognized Napoleon as the legitimate Emperor
of France. Now, for some reason, the Russian Tsar was
forcing them to legitimize Napoleon only in defeat. It was humiliating. When the rest of the allies arrived in Paris,
several of their leaders got up in Alexander's face and went ballistic. Alexander was in a different mood that day,
and gave them a placid response, saying that it was his duty, as a Christian, to forgive
his enemies. This is what made Alexander impossible to
deal with. Today he was saying that Napoleon had to remain
an Emperor for religious reasons. Yesterday it was because of honour and tradition. Tomorrow? Who knows! The Austrian Foreign Minister summarized these
events in a report to his monarch, in which he called Alexander, (this is a real quote,)
"the biggest baby on earth." He continued, "he has started out by doing
a great deal of harm. We have repaired some of it, but we will suffer
for some time as a result of the things he got up to in those first moments when he ran
away from us!" Alexander's stated priorities going into the
peace conference kinda depended on his mood, but it mostly had to do with the future of
France. As previously discussed, the allies had all
agreed to restore the old Bourbon dynasty to the French throne. The problem was that Alexander didn't like
the Bourbon kings. If you look at France's position in Europe,
France had an interest in making sure that central Europe remained fragmented and weak,
and outside of the influence of any other Great Power. To these ends, France had a long history of
aligning itself with countries like Poland and Saxony and the Ottoman Empire. This was of course a geopolitical thing, but
Tsar Alexander thought that it was a personal thing, and that the Bourbon kings uniquely
had a problem with Russia. Alexander's immediate priority was to keep
the Bourbon Louis XVIII off of the French throne. He suggested making Napoleon's 4 year old
son the king of France, but Talleyrand patiently explained to him that this would allow Napoleon
to pull the strings from exile. Alexander then tried to put a man named Bernadotte
on the French throne. Bernadotte was a former French marshall who
had turned against Napoleon, and was singlehandedly responsible for bringing Sweden into the coalition
against France. In the late stages of the war Bernadotte and
Alexander had worked closely together, and Alexander viewed him as the one Frenchman
that he could trust. Alexander pushed hard for Bernadotte, but
Talleyrand wouldn't budge. He and the allies had all agreed to a Bourbon
restoration, and they all saw Bernadotte for what he was. An attempt to put a Russian puppet on the
French throne. Talleyrand explained to Alexander that they
couldn't be placing whomever they wished on the French throne, or they were no better
than the Revolutionaries. The new king needed to be a legitimate French
king of royal blood. Alexander got desperate. What about a distant cousin? A younger brother? Anybody but Louis XVIII. Talleyrand held firm, and Alexander backed
down. An impressive feat, considering that the Russians
had Paris under military occupation. A Bourbon king would return to the French
throne, and Alexander's dream of a grand Franco-Russian alliance withered and died. I mentioned the Austrian Foreign Minister
before, and how he had a rather dim opinion of the Russian Tsar. "Biggest baby on earth," and all that. The Austrian Foreign Minister's name was Klemens
von Metternich, and the period we're beginning to cover today is sometimes called "The Age
of Metternich." That's a clue as to his importance. Metternich would become the architect of the
postwar international system, and one of the 19th century's most preeminent figures. Metternich's task was vastly harder than it
seemed, because not only was the international system undergoing a stark transformation at
this time, but so was Austria. Of course what I'm referencing here is the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. And now my punishment for bringing up the
Holy Roman Empire is that I have to explain what it was. We should begin with the French philosopher
Voltaire's famous quip that the Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an
Empire. So what was it? The Holy Roman Empire was a central European...institution...that
had existed in one form or another for over 1,000 years. I say institution because the Holy Roman Empire
was by no means a state. Each member of the Empire conducted its own
foreign policy with its own military under its own laws. Hundreds of tiny states were members of this
club, this institution, and together they loosely supported a central Emperor. The Holy Roman Emperor was a prestigious title
with very little actual power behind it. He could call for aid if one of the member
states was attacked, but it was up to each independent state whether or not they would
respond. In fact, each state had its own unique deal
worked out with the Imperial Crown, which put further limits on the Emperor's power. Some were expected to contribute money to
military campaigns, but no soldiers. Some were expected to contribute soldiers,
but no money. Some were under no obligation to offer anything
at all. By the 17th century the Holy Roman Emperor
could no longer even have an option on religious matters, which kinda defeats the purpose of
the "Holy" part of their title. Although the Imperial Crown of the was remarkably
weak, the Holy Roman Emperor usually controlled the most powerful state within the Empire. Beginning in the 15th century and continuing
up until the Napoleonic Wars, that meant that the Holy Roman Emperor was the Archduke of
Austria. Since the 13th century, Austria had been controlled
by the Habsburg family. The Habsburgs were one of the most powerful
families in Europe, and at times over the last 500 years had controlled Portugal, Spain,
the Netherlands, the kingdom of Germany, parts of northern Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia,
Bohemia, I could go on. The dynasty was remarkably successful. And what made it especially remarkable was
that very little of this territory was gained through conquest. It was instead gained diplomatically. The Austrian Habsburgs had a family motto:
"let others wage war, but thou, happy Austria, marry; for those kingdoms that Mars gives
to others, Venus gives to thee." Others conquer through war. The Habsburgs conquer through marriage. Fast Forward to the 19th century. The Holy Roman Emperor was still an Austrian
Habsburg, now facing an expansionist France under Napoleon. He learned too late that the Holy Roman Empire
was not equipped to face a direct attack. A victorious Napoleon demanded the abolition
of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Habsburg Emperor, having decided that this powerless
husk was no longer worth defending, agreed. With that, Austria became fully independent
under its first Emperor, Francis I. I lay all of that groundwork because by 1814,
Austria was at a crossroads. The new Empire of Austria had played a critical
role in the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, but now what? They could re-form the Holy Roman Empire if
they wished, but...did they wish? When push came to shove, some of the largest
members of the Empire sided with Napoleon. If the Holy Roman Empire wasn't a military
alliance, what good was it? Yes, the title was prestigious, but you could
argue that the restrictions within the Empire only slowed Austria down, with no clear benefit. Francis, the former Holy Roman Emperor and
current Austrian Emperor, was sympathetic to this point of view, as was his Foreign
Minister, Metternich. Metternich is sometimes described as a conservative
or a reactionary, but that's not quite right. A true reactionary would have fought to re-form
the Holy Roman Empire, but Metternich happily allowed it to die. He was a Realist, not that concerned with
ideology so long as it protected his hard-won peace. In his excellent and definitive biography
of Metternich, Wolfram Siemann writes that "this [the question of whether Metternich
was a reactionary] disregards the experiences of human beings who were looking back at twenty-five
years of war and revolution. The question contemporary witnesses asked
themselves was whether the more than three million dead on the battlefields of Europe
had died for any meaningful goal. In many peasant families, there were no male
youths left." That three million number is on the lower
end of the spectrum, I've seen credible estimates of 5 to 7 million when you include civilians. Unthinkable loss. Nobody who lived through this period would
ever be the same. Across France, 20% of the men born between
1790 and 1795 were dead. An entire generation of young men had been
wiped out. In that same book, Siemann provides the best
summary of Metternich's worldview that I've ever seen. "In Metternich's case, coming to terms with
the war meant considering the suffering he had witnessed endless times on the battlefields
and along the roads - unnecessary, pointless, even a crime, caused by human delusions of
grandeur that, he thought, could pull down the walls protecting civilization and the
law (as he understood it) at any time and in any place. It was the duty of politics to erect enduring
barriers against this possibility. [...] He opposed this catastrophe on humanitarian
grounds, and his lasting commitment was: never again." Metternich saw balance between Great Powers
as the answer. He feared a Second French Revolution, or something
like it, but he couldn't clearly see how Austria could possibly prevent one. However, with a balanced international system,
any state seeking to dominate could simply be slapped down by everybody else. This theory for peace played into Austrian
strengths. Ever since the French Revolution, Austria
had positioned itself as the defender of precedent and tradition and the rule of law. Accordingly, they began to expand their diplomatic
influence and cultivate a following of smaller states, especially in central Europe, who
feared being swallowed up by the regional instability that would inevitably follow the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. Before proceeding, it would be helpful to
discuss what the Austrian Empire actually was. What we're really talking about here are the
personal holdings of the Habsburg family, which included the lands that had been the
duchy of Austria, but it also included the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Bohemia,
the Kingdom of Croatia, along with a hodgepodge of other titles. It may be helpful to look at the ethnic breakdown
of the Austrian Empire, because this will tell you you everything you need to know about
Austrian politics. First and foremost there was the German speaking
core, centered around Vienna and the old duchy of Austria. Then there were the Magyars of Hungary, who
smoke Hungarian. The third major group were the Bohemians,
who spoke Czech. Then, in the borderlands, there were Croats,
Serbs, Slovaks, and others who spoke various Slavic languages. To the east there was Transylvania, whose
inhabitants spoke Romanian. There were also regions where the majority
spoke Polish and Ukrainian. And although this wasn't the case at this
exact moment, the Austrian Empire would soon have a large Italian minority as well. By one count, the Austrian Empire consisted
of 14 ethnic groups, speaking 17 different languages. The Austrian Empire was really an incredible
experiment, one that you don't see anywhere else during the 19th century. This was not the case of one ethnic group
dominating their neighbours. This was a true synthesis of cultures and
ethnicities, united under the Habsburg Emperor. In the eyes of the Habsburg Emperor, all of
these holdings were (at least theoretically) co-equal, which made administering the Empire
the world's most complicated balancing act. The constraints within the Habsburg system
become clear when you look at the Crown's relationship with the Kingdom of Hungary. The Kingdom of Hungary was home to more than
just the ethnic Hungarian population, and when you add everyone together it accounted
for 35 to 40% of the Austrian Empire's population. That fact alone should make it clear why there
was tension between the Austrian Germans and the Hungarians. The Habsburg Emperor ruled Hungary as their
king, but he was not one of them, and so he was bound by severe constitutional limitations. One of these limitations was that the Hungarian
King was not allowed to tax the people of Hungary. The local Hungarian aristocracy was allowed
to tax the people, but they were under no obligation to pass that money along to their
King. Again, this was 35 to 40% of the Empire's
population we're talking about. This exemption created a massive hole in the
Imperial budget that Austria was constantly trying to fill. Over the centuries, this arrangement resulted
in the Hungarian aristocracy becoming extremely rich, even though the Hungarian people remained
quite poor compared to the German speaking population to the west. The Hungarian King was also constrained when
it came to military recruitment. Despite being home to 35 to 40% of the Austrian
Empire, Hungarian subjects only made up like 5% of its military. This number could fluctuate, during the Napoleonic
Wars it climbed as high as 20%, but in order to accomplish that, the Habsburg Emperor had
to go to the Hungarian aristocracy and give them whatever they wanted. This tenuous constitutional relationship meant
that Austria was cursed in a way to be in constant negotiations with itself. The Hungarians were always suspicious of any
territorial gains that added more ethnic Germans to the Empire. The whole political system was a delicate
balance, and if the ethnic Germans got something the Hungarians always wanted something too. Despite all of its contradictions, the Austrian
Empire had a lot of credibility on the international stage. Whatever the reasons, the fact that Austria
was not primarily concerned with territorial expansion mattered a lot, especially to all
of those tiny central European states who had recently been made vulnerable by the dissolution
of the Holy Roman Empire. It meant that despite having the weakest military
of the Great Powers, Austria had a lot of friends at a time when having a lot of friends
was a valuable thing to have. None of this was true of the other German
Great Power, in many ways Austria's mirror opposite. Where Austria was old, they were young. Where Austria was defined by its diversity,
they were defined by their Germanness. Where Austria was weaker militarily than they
could be, they were stronger militarily than they ought to be. Where Austria was not that interested in territorial
expansion, they were obsessed with it to the point where they thought of very little else. The two German Great Powers were brothers,
but they were brothers that did not get along. In 1814, the thing that defined Prussia was
its precarity. It was the smallest of the Great Powers in
every way. It had a tiny population of only 10 million
people, 3 times less populous than France and almost 5 times less populous than Russia. It was also small geographically, as you can
see, its tiny population was crammed into a bunch of isolated pockets that weren't even
connected to each other. It was also precarious in its positioning. As I've already discussed, central Europe
was no longer under the protection of the Holy Roman Empire, which meant that tiny Prussia
was now vulnerable to its much larger neighbours. "Vulnerable" might be under-selling it. The Prussians had enlisted Russian help against
the French, but now there were Russians everywhere. Poland was under joint Russian and Prussian
occupation, but there were also Russian occupying the Polish speaking areas of Eastern Prussia,
and they weren't leaving. The Russians were also occupying Saxony along
Prussia's southern border, and these guys weren't leaving either. Central Europe was in a state of flux. It was clear to everybody that Russia saw
opportunity here, which was entirely antithetical to the balance of power principal. If Russia sought to dominate Prussia, the
other Great Powers would have no choice but to respond. In the eyes of people like Metternich and
Castlereagh, Russia had to remove itself from central Europe if there was ever to be peace. Prussia had to become the kind of Great Power
that was capable of resisting Russian influence. This was the priority of the Prussian Prime
Minister and Foreign Minister Karl August von Hardenberg. The experience with Napoleon had taught Hardenberg
that Prussia was not yet a true Great Power. It was powerful regionally, but too small
to have a global impact. In order to graduate from a regional power
to a Great Power, Prussia needed people, Prussia needed resources, and Prussia needed territory. This line between a strong regional power
and a weak Great Power is a fuzzy one. Eric Hobsbawm writes that "Austria and Prussia
were really Great Powers by courtesy only," continuing later, "their chief function was
to act as European stabilizers." It's true that Austria and Prussia could not
march the global influence of France, Britain, and Russia. I would quibble slightly and say that Austria's
diplomatic influence at this time made them a Great Power, but it's true that Prussia
lacked the global reach of any of the other powers. The only reason everybody else decided to
treat them as a Great Power was their formidable military. By the end of the war, on a per capita basis,
Prussia was fielding 6 times more soldiers than Austria, which meant that despite their
relative weakness, they were capable of going toe-to-toe with any other Great Power. Hardenberg saw in Prussia an urgent need for
territorial expansion. All of these isolated enclaves would not do,
they were just asking to be swallowed up by some stronger power. In the upcoming peace conference, Prussia
hoped to gain some territorial coherence, and become a true Great Power with global
influence. The original plan was for the four victorious
Great Powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, to dominate the peace conference
and impose their will upon everyone else. But Tsar Alexander's behaviour had begun to
make people nervous, and Russia's creeping domination over Prussia seemed a disaster
waiting to happen. If there was a serious split at the conference,
with Britain and Austria on one side and Russia and Prussia on the other, it was difficult
to imagine how they could possibly resolve it without descending into another war. Metternich and Castlereagh saw this looming
crisis before them, and so they approached Talleyrand and asked him to represent France
at Vienna. France remained a Great Power, and so it made
very little sense to exclude them from shaping the post-war world. Besides, Napoleon Bonaparte had been defeated
and removed from power, which meant that France was theoretically a normal country again. Naturally, nothing could have pleased Talleyrand
more. Castlereagh and Metternich pulled in Hardenberg
of Prussia, who was still keen on finding a way to resist Russian influence, and got
him to agree. This left Tsar Alexander isolated. When the four other Great Powers came to him
and demanded that France be given a seat at the Congress, he of course threw a fit, but
then reluctantly agreed. Over the summer, everybody travelled to Vienna. And by everybody I mean everybody. Virtually every state in Europe sent delegations,
and some states that didn't even exist anymore sent delegations as well. After decades of war, a festive, slightly
euphoric mood took over the city. Peace was at hand. When September rolled around, the real work
began.
No squares this time. Maps for days on the other hand.
Boats! 🐕🤚
so how long until part 2?
Really enjoyable video, as always. I thought I'd post one comment from YouTube here for those who haven't seen it, as I thought it was really informative:
What do you all think?
Also, I am wondering why HC (and many historians in general) don't consider the Crimean War a major war (I think this was also mentioned in the comments, though I can't remember). A large amount of people died, great powers fought each other, and there were multiple large battles/deployments. It wasn't exactly a Fashoda incident, it was a proper 3-year affair.
Banger vid as always, time flies when watching HC
Wow, I understand why it took so long
We have been blessed
I hope he talks more about Germany in Part 2. There was a lot going on in Germany in 1814/1815.
He’s baaaaaaack