‘An exercise in national self-interest’ ‘An considered attempt to restore the
European balance of power’ Which of the two statements offers the more
accurate view of the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15? Refer to both
statements in your answer.
The key words in this question are ‘self-interest’ and ‘considered…balance of
power’.You must explain what these meant in the early 19th century. You must be
able to apply the terms of the Congress of Vienna to the question. ‘More accurate
view’ means that you must discuss both interpretations and you should make your
preference clear.
The most immediate intention of the Congress of Vienna was to settle Europe after the defeat of
Napoleon. He had brought war to Europe for 15 years and, before him, the French Revolution had
threatened the ruling classes of Europe. In a sense, both statements are true. Self-interest led the
victorious powers to seek a stable peace after the conflict and a balance of power was needed to
ensure that no country could again endanger security. Napoleon’s .
This introduction is relevant. It focuses immediately on the key words and opens
lines of argument, which will be developed later. The background to 1814 is brief;
the answer avoids unnecessary narrative.
National self-interest was paramount. Although they were eager to come to an agreement, the
victorious statesmen were determined to defend their countries’ interests. They had cooperated against
Napoleonic wars but their alliance had not been close and they had different aims. Hence, the powers
made several suggestion during the congress for safeguarding their national self-interests.
To Britain, her self-interest was a stable and peaceful Europe, which would not block her trade in
South America and Asia. Britain was convinced that any future challenge to the peace and stability of
Europe would come from either France or Russia. Accordingly, Britain had as one of his aims the
creation of a strong, independent central Europe designed to resist aggression from both east and west.
Initially, he believed that both Austria and Prussia would together be able to provide the central
counterbalance to future French and Russian ambitions. It seems that the Vienna Settlement was
indeed a result of such calculation because Austria and Prussia did control most of central Europe
according to the Vienna Settlement. Yet, does it mean that national self-interest was the most
important factor in shaping the Vienna Settlement?
To Austria, her self-interest was the maintenance of her multi-racial empire. Therefore, she did not
want to see the spread of nationalism and liberalism, which might lead to the collapse of her empire.
Besides, she wished to re-assert her authority over the German and Italian states. Such calculation was
clearly materialized in the Vienna Settlement since Italian and German states were Austrian sphere of
influence. Besides, several measures, namely legitimacy and division of the kingdoms, which
Napoleon had unified, were adopted for preventing the spread of nationalism and liberalism. Yet, does
it mean that national self-interest was the most important factor in shaping the Vienna Settlement?
To Russia, her self-interest was the traditional pursuit of westward expansion, particularly Poland at
that time…The Vienna Settlement did show that….. Yet, does it mean that national self-interest was
the most important factor in shaping the Vienna Settlement?
To Prussia, she wanted to get Rhineland and Saxony…..The Vienna Settlement did show that….. Yet,
does it mean that national self-interest was the most important factor in shaping the Vienna
Settlement?
To France, she was determined that French interests would be recognised by the Congress of Vienna
that France would be restored to an equal footing with the other European powers. The facts that the
king of France, Louis XVIII was restored because of the Vienna Settlement and France was not
severely punished seem to suggest that French calculations were fulfilled in the Vienna Settlement.
Yet, does it mean that national self-interest was the most important factor in shaping the Vienna
Settlement?
Based on the above observations, it seems that ‘self-interest’ was a more accurate view of the
Congress of Vienna since the national self-interests were fulfilled in the Vienna Settlement. Yet,
if that was the whole picture, why did Prussia get 2/5 Saxony only? Moreover, Russia could only
control the foreign affairs of Poland who was an independent country, at least in name. Napoleonic
wars had harmed every country in Europe and it seemed reasonable in the interests of the victors to
punish France. However, no severe punishment was made on her. Why? Likewise, Austria alone could
not control the German Confederation which was also under Prussian supervision. While several
Italian states were controlled by non-Habsburgs Dynasty. All these tend to show that the Vienna
Settlement was a compromise among the powers instead of a conflict among powers over their
national self-interests. Yes, their national self-interests were fulfilled. It is not surprising, however, to
say that a more important principle was the main guideline of the Vienna Settlement that could answer
all of the above questions. It was balance of power.
There was no real contradiction between self-interest and the balance of power. The Austrian
Netherlands became part of Holland as a buffer against France. This represented both self-interest, in
the sense that Austria could get Lombardy and Venetia of the Italian Peninsula as compensation, and
the balance of power, in the sense that France was checked in western Europe as the power was
balanced there. Therefore Austria maintained her self-interest by gaining territories to replace those
which she lost and this contributed to the balance of power.
In peacetime, the rivalry between the major countries became apparent. For example, Russia had
ambitions in eastern Europe, especially Poland, and Prussia sought to extend her influence over the
smaller German states such as Saxony. These issues could cause trouble with Austria which wanted to
maintain its role in central Europe and its pre-eminence over Germany. The statesmen compromised
so that no country could threaten another and no major country was completely dissatisfied. The
balance of power was more important than individual self-interest, which might threaten peace.
Balance also involved security against France. Louis XVIII was restored as king. Conquered
territories were taken away and a protective barrier of states was constructed around France. Although
France was punished further after the ‘Hundred Days’, the punishment was not severe. France was
encircled on one hand, for preventing her aggression, while her power was preserved on the other, for
maintaining the balance of power in Europe so that there was no power vacuum. Again, balance of
power seems to be the most important guideline in treating France: balance of power in Western
Europe against France and balance of power in Europe against any domination of a single
power.
The changes were largely successful. Peace was restored and, while there were risings in Italy, Spain
and Greece, these were not a great danger. The allies did not go to war with each other until the
Crimean War in 1854. One of the most important reasons was the maintenance of the balance of
power since 1815. The self-interest of the members resulted in a long-lasting balance of power.