Posts Tagged ‘european history


European History Pt. 50 — The Conservative International System

Last time I looked at the aftermath of Vienna. Basically, agitation began immediately. Napoleon had tried to impose a revolutionary changes to government from above, but now there were movements from below to reform and change the way that power was distributed. For example, last time we saw that England, which had been EXEMPTED from Napoleon’s rule, was not especially due for changes, and the working class along with even certain business leaders wanted to reform the voting system and corn laws.

Now I want to look at the way in which the signatories to Vienna worked largely cooperatively to manage a series of revolutionary attempts throughout Europe.

Aix-la-Chapelle 1918

At this conference, the victorious powers over Napoleon agreed to withdraw their occupying troops from France. They wanted the new Bourbon monarch, XVIII to stand on his own. France’s reparation debt was privatized. The allies were paid immediately and France paid back the private bankers over time.

Alexander proposed a kind of league of nations whereby a standing international force would act to guarantee the international order (read: status quo). The British, like the U.S. today, refused to commit themselves to unforeseen situations. They promised only to make alliances for specific scenarios (like a resurgent France).

Troppau 1820

At the congress of Troppau, the main issue was the agitation in souther Europe, such as in Italy (Naples) and Spain. At first, these countries accepted Napoleonic rule as progressive, but then they went their own way and created new constitutions that were then forced on the Bourbon rulers that were installed after the war. The funny thing was that the regimes in Spain and Naples were so decrepit and corrupt that the “revolutionaries” were nothing more than average, probably somewhat prosperous, citizens.

Metternich, ever on the watch against change, was scared. He thought the rest of Europe should be quarantined from the revolutions. He called the congress of Troppau, to which Britain and France only sent observers. There, at Troppau, something extraordinary happened. Metternich met privately with Alexander at an inn and had tea. Metternich convinced Alexander to change his entire political philosophy. After this meeting, Alexander admitted that the was wrong about constitutionalism and popular sovereignty and that he would join Metternich’s crusade for stability and against political agitation.

The “Troppau Protocol” was drawn up which declared the need for European great powers to band together against revolution. Neither France nor Great Britain signed, but Neapolitans were put to the sword anyway and Ferdinand I was restored as “absolute” king. The book says it well, “…the Congress of Troppau, ostensibly a Europewide international body, had in effect functioned as an antirevolutionary alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia.” Yes.

Congress of Verona 1922

In 1821, a Greek man named Alexander Ypsilanti, a former Russian soldier, initiated a series of revolutionary acts in order to separate a Greek part of the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire. He thought he would receive help from Russia since a Grecophile conversion of the Ottoman empire had been a long time Russian project. Metternich was scared of what a pro Russia Greece (and more) would mean.

Alexander, who going by pure self interest should have supported Ypsilanti, joined Metternich in quashing the uprising. 

Also very interesting was that France, growing weary of spies and revolutionaries on its western border, asked permission to lead an army into Spain. Of course, those at the congress eagerly agreed. Spain was reconquered and the French army was greeted with cheering crowds. This was a sad development because Spanish liberals could only watch as the general populace supported a completely counterrevolutionary, foreign army reinstall the king and crush “heretics” and “masons.” Spain’s essential conservatism was utterly confirmed.


European History pt. 49 — Mid Century Agitation

Last time I started on a short chapter that tried to do a kind of potted intellectual history of the early 19th century. I found it kind of tedious, so I’m basically skipping it. Most of it was about nationalism and how various movements formed secret societies with national identities as well as reviving peasant languages of one type or another (in Russia particularly).

Eastern Question

If you remember, Metternich managed to solve the eastern, Polish question by getting Russia to accept a congressional Poland. As soon as the ink was dry on this proposal though, agitation begun. Poland wanted to be re-unified and did not want Russian control. They longed to be connected with Prussian Poland and Austria Hungary Poland.

Germany Proper

Metternich was watching Germany closely, and he didn’t like what he saw. He saw the creation of Burchenschafts, youth clubs that were in favor of a peasant (read, democratic) Germany. A German writer who was an informant for Russia was assassinated. The assassin was sent gushing letters of gratitude. Metternich could not stand for these agitations and so called various leaders together at Carlsbad. There they issued the Carlsbad decrees which renewed repression in parts of Germany and Austria Hungary. Some German leaders retracted constitutions that they had granted.


In England, parliament passed the corn laws to raise the revenue for landowners. This made grain much more expensive and the lower classes rebelled. There were some uprisings and some peaceful protests, some organized by the powerful new factory class. Most people at the time joined in the call for annual elections of parliament by universal male suffrage along with the repeal of the corn laws. At one such peaceful demonstration, British soldiers fired on the crowd in what was termed the “Peterloo” massacre (1819). It was also at this time that a conspiracy to assassinate all the members of the cabinet was hatched. They were caught on Cato street, hence “cato street conspiracy”


European History Pt. 48 — Beginning of the “isms”

Last time I looked at the industrial revolution. After 1830, Britain was the factory for all of Europe. Up  until 1901, the share of GDP grew enormously in trade, transport, and manufacture. It was not until 1870 that Britain even faced any competition from other countries in the area of manufacturing.

This time I want to look at the social changes that accompanied the first half of the 19th century.


It was around the beginning of the 19th century that various political and social doctrine began to to flourish. “Liberalism” first appeared in 1819, “socialism” in 1832, “feminism,” “humanitarianism” and “communism” date from the 1840s. This was indicative of a philosophical revolution that was trying to catch up with the massive changes that took place in the industrial and french revolutions. These concepts were not new. People talked about living together before “socialism” was coined, but the systematization of these doctrines along with their explicit recognition was a powerful change in the intellectual landscape.


The book talks briefly about romanticism around this time. People like Wordsworth and Lord Byron in England and Victor Hugo in France epitomized an artistic movement that reveled in the unknown and the unknowable in addition to rejecting classical forms and systems. Architecture underwent a gothic revival. For instance, the British parliament building that still stands is influenced by gothic architecture.

Feminism, Radicalism, Nationalism

At this point, the book goes through several “isms” in turn, in kind of a disorganized way. I don’t want to just recite them, but these isms were particular important.

Radicalism primarily came about in Britain as the heirs of people like Thomas Paine. The problem with earlier radicals is that the wars with France discredited such positions. People were nationalistic and banded together to war against France. Anyone who stood in the way o that was not listened to.  However, the radicals came back at this time and advocated for democracy (which not all liberals at the time were in favor). Around this were the beginnings of UTOPIAN movements, like Robert Owen (ideal paternalistic capitalism) and Charles Fourier (localism) and Count De St. Simone (socialism, but they called their doctrine, St. Simoneanism). In France, radicalism came from those who thought the French revolution was not complete.

Feminism gained at this time. The feminism on offer was primarily egalitarian feminism, which was influenced by liberalism and argued that men and women were morally equal and so deserving of the same rights. Harriet Taylor was a force for these ideas and she worked with John Stuart Mill over many years developing a defense of feminist principles and applications. Feminism, understood as a quest for voting rights, proceeded more quickly in the U.S. and Britain.

Next time Ill pick up by looking at nationalism.


European History Pt. 47 — Industrial Revolution

Finally, we’re past the French Revolution, having closed out the Napoleonic era by looking at the Congress of Vienna, which would provide the basis for roughly 100 years without a major great power conflict.

Now we’re going to switch gears and look at the economic revolution that was taking place in this same period, the industrial revolution. The book I’m reading notes that even though both the economic revolution in the industrial revolution and the political changes in the French revolution was surprisingly separate. Of course, there are interrelationships between the two — probably a huge number, the book merely makes the astute point that one did not entail the other because though England was not swept in the revolutionary fervor on the continent, it was the leader of the economic revolution that took place from roughly 1780-1830.

Industrial Revolution

The book starts by talking about how the industrial revolution marks one of the great epochs in human history, the first being started by agriculture. This bold statement is confirmed by reading of another book on population dynamics over human history. Up until the industrial revolution, power was mainly provided by humans and their domesticated animals, with some occasional help from wind and water. But the industrial revolution unleashed a different ORDER of power with steam, coal, oil, and then nuclear power. These massive increased in energy was accompanied by a lasting and large increase in world population.

The industrial revolution was caused mainly by an agricultural system that had been growing more and more sophisticated in the century following the glorious revolution (1688) and relied on a particular British conception of property and risk taking. Throughout this time, England was ruled by the “Gentleman of England” or the “squirearchy.” The advances in agriculture made food more plentiful, living more comfortable, and freed up labor for other tasks.

Where did this “other labor” go? It went largely to the production of cotton in a complicated dance of social and technological innovation lasting decades. In 1733, John Kay invented the fly shuttle cutting weaving labor in half. This increased the demand for yarn. In the 1760s, the spinning jenny was set up to respond to that demand. In 1769 and 1780s, Richard Arkwright patented the water frame, which could spin multiple threads, and his machine became steam powered in times. In the U.S. the demand for raw cotton stimulated the plantation system (damn) which increased outputs with technology like the cotton gin.

The steam engine was being refined at this same time. At first it was not efficient enough to be used outside of coal mines themselves (where their fuel was right there) — the engines pumped water out of the mines at first. Then they were refined, and by 1780, the firm of Watt and Boulton was a profitable steam-engine manufacturing business. 

By the 1830s, one phase of the industrial revolution was complete, that of textile automation. Next would come the railroad phase. The first locomotive was built in 1829.

Social Consequences

The industrialization of Britain brought women from the “putting out” system into factories. Children were employed. Skilled laborers were displaced by machines. Urban life began in tenements and factory cities, especially in new cities in the middle of England like Manchester.

Wages were high by the standards of the time, but sometimes unpredictable due to business cycles. Days were 14 hours long, which sounds brutal — and it was — but it must also be kept in mind that those who worked on a farm at this time easily worked such hours in the care of their land. Of course, one might wonder how those 14 hours FELT in a factory versus on one’s own plot of land.


European History Pt. 45 — The (First) end of Napoleon

In the last post, I looked at Napoleon’s weakening as a result of his unworkable continental system. Now we arrive at the events where he really falls from power. For a history buff, this is like the super bowl. I was really blown away by this chapter.

At the end of 1811, the British were well along in the industrial revolution, amassing a vast fortune and planning to deploy it in Europe. In Germany and Austria, many were ready to rise again against Napoleon. However, the most dissatisfied power was Russia. Alexander had gained nothing from his alliance with Napoleon and he was tired of it. (Remember Talleyrand let him know that Napoleon was overreaching).

In December 31, 1810 Alexander withdrew from the continental system and resumed trade with Britain. Napoleon vowed to crush Russia and invaded in June of 1812.

Napoleon intended for the war to be brief, but it was anything but. He marched to Moscow and it found it inhospitable. He could not stay the winter there and so he decided on a retreat, but it got damn cold, and his army was harassed into disintegration. The book has a powerful quote here: “For a century after 1812 the retreat from Moscow remained the last word in military horror.”

Napoleon himself escaped the disaster back to Paris where he raised a new army. In the early months of 1813 he led it against a now rising Europe. This army was smashed at the battle of Leipzig, a battle known to the Germans as the “Battle of the Nations.” In terms of number of men who participated, this was the largest engagement in history, until the 20th century.

Things get really complex from here, because diplomatic maneuvering begins in earnest. All of the main countries opposed to Napoleon had different hopes for what a post-Napoleon France would look like. In November 1813, Clemens von Metternich offered Napoleon the Frankfurt Proposals. However, Napoleon rejected these proposals which gave British Foreign Minister Viscount Castlereagh a chance to secure British war aims. He secured the Quadruple Alliance of the British, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. They entered Paris in 1814 and forced Napoleon’s abdication.

At the behest of French citizens as well as the quadruple alliance, the Bourbon monarchy was restored in the person of Louis XVIII who had been ignored for over a generation. He adopted the Napoleonic codes in France. Louis XVIII signed the first treaty with the quadruple alliance. France’s borders were restored to their 1792 geography, but beyond there were no punishments or indemnities imposed on France. The rest of Europe wanted a resurgent, peaceful France. Napoleon was exiled to Elba. England embarked on a century of world leadership from 1814-1914.

Next is the Congress of Vienna.


European History Pt. 44 — The Tide Turns Against Napoleon

Last time, we saw Napoleon at his high point. His brothers were king in various part of Europe and he himself was undisputed land power in Europe. He was at peace with Russia and found allies in trying to starve Great Britain. This time, we see how it all begins to unravel.

Napoleon tried to create an ideology to unify the nations of Europe against Great Britain. He called Great Britain “a nation of shopkeepers” who wanted to keep Europe’s growing wealth for themselves (the parallels to anti semitism in WWII is pretty interesting). Both sides resorted to trade warfare. Napoleon forbid British goods and England blockaded most of Europe. England was called “the modern carthage,” a ruthless trade cartel. Both France and Britain competed for trade.

NOTE: the war of 1812 in American history came about largely because the U.S. was one of the few neutral countries that could pick between these two blocs of power.

But the continental system was a failure. Not because the continent was starved out. There was plenty of food and weapons produced in Europe proper, so the blockade did not succeed that way. Also, boycotting French goods BOOSTED the business powers on the continent who now did not have to compete with them.

Rather, the problems came from the fact that there was not free trade in the continent. France kept tariffs strongest at its national borders and so its industry was protected at the expense of other countries.

Also, land transport was too slow and inefficient to keep the goods (which there was enough of) going to the right places at the right times. If Napoleonic Europe had happened 40 years later (when railroads existed) — the continental system MIGHT HAVE SUCCEEDED. 

Britain meanwhile was not damaged by the continental system because they had their overseas connections and were able to keep their traders flourishing.

Resistance to the French System

After placing the continental system in economic context, the book turns to a little intellectual history, which I love.

The book discusses nationalism and how it grew and was nurtured by Napoleon’s insistence on a kind of French internationalism. People explored their local traditions and found new ways to argue in favor of their autonomy. They turned to liberalism and conservatism in various ways to make this case. The book has this powerful quote: “Both conservatism and liberalism rose up against Napoleon, destroyed him, outlasted him, and shaped the history of the following generations.” 

For instance, in Spain, anti Napoleonism was conservative, aiming to restore the Bourbon monarchy and the church. England by contrast of course was concerned with stamping “Boney” out completely.

The most important place though was Germany. We’ve learned so much of Germany, how it had always played second fiddle to France intellectually speaking. Prussia was a military state and was a great power on that fact alone, but now there was a great flourishing in German thinking and art. This was the time of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, and Beethoven — some of the most interesting minds of all time. Germany at this time was wrestling with its national identity after roughly 300 years of being manipulated and isolated by various empires.

Herder is the classic expression of these impulses, but because I’ve never read him, I won’t summarize other than to say he seemed to challenge the enlightenment view of universal reason developing everywhere at different paces.  He seemed to argue that cultures were just different, end of story, and that this difference was a source of pride for its citizens. Culture, was the watchword of this philosophy. Anti-semitism developed at this time as a perversion of the anti-internationalism that was trickling through Germany. Looking back at how this spirit developed, its clear that it had many laudatory goals and impulses (it was for instance, democratic because it emphasized the spirit of the Volk), but it was also lent itself to a kind of paranoid and neurotic obsession with national purity, an overreaction to years of manipulation and exploitation.

Prussia especially internalized these lessons. They had lost their territory in one sweeping blow (the loss to Napoleon) and were casting about for a philosophy to bring about a new Prussia. They settled on a kind of patriotic militarism (the kind that had been on display in the American Revolution. Hessian mercenaries who saw American patriotism reported back to Germany).


European History Pt. 43 — Napoleon’s High Point

We have recently seen how Revolutionary France was able to survive three coalitions of European powers that were ostensibly designed to destroy it. It didn’t hurt that France had Napoleon as their commander.

The Continental System

After the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807, Napoleon decided to wage war against Britain, the only problem is that his fleet had been destroyed at Trafalgar. Thus, he opted for economic warfare. He tried to organize a Europe-wide boycott of British goods. He thought this would lead to unemployment and the inability for England to carry its debt.

At first, the strategy seemed to work quite well. Russia, Prussia, and Austria Hungary agreed not to buy any British goods and even declared war on Britain. Britain, fearing for its economic life, rushed to rattle sabers (cannons) at Copenhagen, which was an entry point for its goods into the rest of Europe. This move backfired, and Denmark allied with Napoleon.

Napoleon even got Spain on board by getting the Bourbon king (Charles something) to abdicate. Napoleon’s own brother was installed as the new king after Spain and Portugal were invaded. Napoleon reasoned that he needed to control every inch of the European coast to make Britain bleed, and in that he was probably right.

However, the Penninsular war (on the Iberian penninsula) went badly. Spanish guerillas fought back and Britain reinforced them with the forces of the Duke of Wellington. These successes spurred a wave of anti-French feeling, and Austria Hungary again prepared (for the fourth time) to go to war against Napoleon.

Austrian War of Liberation 

In 1808, Napoleon met with Tsar Alexander I, his Russian ally, hoping to expand their alliance. However, Talleyrand, the famous French diplomat betrayed his master and country. He said that Napoleon was overreaching that the Russians should stay on the sidelines. He thought the traditional balance of power tradition of Europe was being flaunted and that the most powerful countries should not be allied, as there could be no counterbalance. This suited Alexander fine since Napoleon had been less than supportive of Alexander’s aims in the Balkans.

Russia stood on the sidelines when Austria declared war against Napoleon for the FOURTH time in 1809. Austria lost for the fourth time, and was partitioned as punishment.

At this time —  history is so crazy — Napoleon was 40 and was casting around for a way to get a son to inherit his great empire. He had no sons by his current wife, so he divorced her. He tried to marry a Romanov or a Hapsburg, and in the end, he was hitched in 1810 with the NIECE OF MARIE ANTOINETTE, and they had a child that year, who was made the King of Rome (Napoleon was so grandiose it makes me sick). The pope protested of course, but he was simply taken captive.

Napoleon at the height of his power

In 1810 and 1811, Napoleon’s influence was at its zenith. He controlled both coasts of Italy, for ships and for glory (rome was a historic imperial city, obvi), and Belgium in the north. France was like an octopus, reaching a tentacle north and south across central Europe, sandwhiching a host of lesser lords. Spain in the west, and Prussia in the northeast and Austria in the southeast obeyed his commands.

Napoleon’s hereditary powers (important in these sorts of European power struggles) were great as well. His brother Josef ruled Naples and then Spain. His brother Louis was king of Holland for a while, brother Jerome was king of Westphalia and sister Caroline became queen of Naples after Josef left.

Culturally, Napoleon’s legal codes were everywhere. He believed in a universalist, ratlonalist state. He believed that all people desired basically the same thing and that regional customs and laws got in the way of systematically constituting a government no paper. As a result he favored constitutions: they were official and could be made, like enormous governing contraptions.

Catholicism was depleted in every part of the empire. Napoleon believed in toleration and a secular state. He even demanded this of Spain, which was outraged by these demands.