Section 1
Napoleon, The Congress of Vienna, and the Concert of Europe
Nation states as we think of them are the product of the republican revolutions in
British North American and France. For the international system the French revolution had
the largest immediate impact on the formation of the international system and the modern
rules of behavior that nations began to form with each other.
The French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon shocked the European nations. It
also served to unite some scattered segments of Europe and detach nations from historic
ways of doing business. The result was a search for a better way of doing business as
nations.
The Congress of Vienna is an example of a specific way in which the nation states
of Europe attempted to set up a system that balanced power and protected national selfinterest. The Congress of Vienna was convened in 1815 by the four European powers which
had defeated Napoleon. The first goal was to establish a new balance of power in Europe
which would prevent imperialism within Europe, such as the Napoleonic Empire, and
maintain the peace between the great powers. The second goal was to prevent political
revolutions, such as the French Revolution, and maintain the status quo.
The European system was built on the idea of expansion. Vienna did not wish to
limit that - it just wanted to limit that within Europe - so European leaders took the
competition outside Europe to the world at large developing larger modern colonial empires.
The dominant theme in global history from 1450 to 1914 is the spread of west
European cultural, economic, political, and military domination.
In 1450, when Portuguese began exploring west coast of Africa, developing and
exploiting new maritime technology the world was a series of isolated communities.
By 1750 world had changed almost completely, with most of Earth visited by west
European explorers. Much of it conquered, and in other parts handwriting of conquest was
on the wall.
Why western Europe expanded like this, while other societies fell before it,
extremely complex question far beyond scope of this class. One element that we do need to
understand in order to understand the subsequent development of the US, however, is the
presence of an ideology of conquest among west Europeans. I would argue that this ideology
rested on a tripod of fundamental beliefs: religion, racism, and nationalism.
Both Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation developed
theological justification for true believers to seize the land and property of non-believers,
and sometimes also to seize the non-believers themselves as slaves.
Religion was reinforced by second powerful motive: racism. West Europeans in age of
expansion took it for granted that whites were a master race. To paraphrase Descartes, I
conquer, therefore I deserve to rule. The very act of expansion proved the inherent
superiority of the conqueror.
These two are then enhanced and strengthened by the competition between
nations. During the time leading up to and following the Congress of Vienna history is
dominated by the great competition for empire among the European powers that exploded in
1689. North America was only one front in a war that raged on and off in Europe, India,
Africa, South America, and the Caribbean.
The nation of Japan is the great exception to the growth of European power. Japan
for various reasons was able to resist this expansion and in fact join with the Europeans in
the race to colonize.
By the end of the 19th century the world is dominated by the European powers
and divided up into colonies and spheres of influence. China has lost all sovereignty except
in name and is run by European powers as they see fit. Even its internal collection of customs
duties is run by the British.
This system, created in Vienna in 1814, for all its flaws (and they are many) holds
until the beginning of the 20th century. Then for complicated reasons that I am going to ask
you to think about in this course the Vienna system for all practical purposes commits
suicide.
WW 1 cannot be considered in just political terms. It needs to be seen in terms of
the great psychological damage that it did to the people and their leaders. Nuremberg,
Appeasement, the Cold War, the United Nations, all flow from some version of the panic that
the destruction of WW1 caused. In most ways WW1 is the source of the modern
international system as Vienna is of the 19th century system. While WW2 gets all the
attention, WW1 is the root for that system. It can be argued that WW2 was simply the
continuation of the conflict begun when the Vienna system collapsed in 1914.
WW1 had another effect. It began the process of decolonization. WW1 caused a
vast population drop, particularly among the European elites that would have run and
administrated the colonial system. They were lying rotting in the mud of France and
Belgium. In addition, colonies were feeling a rising sense of Nationalism. The involvement of
the United States and the new Soviet Union in a new dominate place in World affairs
introduced anti-colonial ideologies to many of the newly emerging nation states.
Together, these factors made the process of decolonization speed up.
Then WW2 solidifies the situation left by the devastation of the First World War.
The aftermath left two super powers standing. What was not fully appreciated at the time by
US policy makers was that the Soviet Union which, which between the years 1934-1945 lost
more than 54 million through starvation, purges, and massive war casualties was a
superpower militarily - but mostly a well-armed shell.
The Vienna system was designed to be based upon national interest not on
ideology. It was designed to counter the wars that had been fought over religion. It was to be
Realpolitik. The problem was, the ideology of Napoleon was still attractive to the people.
Thus, national interest and ideology compete for the attention of nations and diplomats from
then on. We will look at the case study of Indochina to examine the conflict between ideology
and national interest in decolonization.
We will also examine the ideology of the United States in relation to this.
Particularly when we study the Cold War you should ask yourself - how much did the United
States belief in its own ideology lead American thinkers to believe that the Soviets were
acting on their own ideology and not just national interest? Or, were they?
Jean-Baptiste Isabey, The Congress of Vienna , 1819
Names you should be familiar with
 Gustavus Adolphus
 Cardinal Richelieu
 Louis XIV
 James II
 William III
 Frederick II
 Maria Theresa
 Louis XVI
 Napoleon Bonaparte
 Alexander I
 Clemens Von Metternich
 Charles De Talleyrand
 Lord Castlereagh
 The Thirty Years War 1618-1648
 Diplomatic Minuet 1688-1783
 French Revolution
 1815, building on the wreckage
 Working definition of the term “international relations”
It is the way in which nations and people interact. This includes all aspects of the
relations between nations. It involves business relationships. It involves group racial and
national prejudices (both positive and negative) - explain
It involves Religious ideology. It involves political ideology. It involves all the ways
in which nations relate to each other - not just diplomatic. Diplomats must consider all of
this.
 The Protestant Reformation
After the collapse of the Roman Empire different parts of feudal Europe began to
fill in the vacuum left by the loss of the power of Rome. One of the largest unifying power
bases was the Roman church. Indeed after Europe adopted the common Middle Eastern
religion of Christianity (remember Christianity became European in Europe - it was
originally a sect of Judaism imported from the Middle East)
Slowly, the church became the strongest unifier of European political power.
Despite its power, the church had to keep itself from appearing to directly ruling the cities of
the earth. St. Augustine had written “The City of God” to distinguish between the idea of the
city of God and the city of man.
So the church had developed the “two swords” idea. The church would hold the
sword of the word of God and that rule would control the sword of the government of man.
This state/church system is known as sacralism. A Latin saying that has often
been used to describe the principle of sacralism is: cuius regio, eius religio, or "who has
region, decides religion." The idea was that the ruler of each individual area would decide the
religion of those under his control based upon his own faith.
Well the Church was the only institution to survive the fall of Rome and it was
determined to keep all regions with the one religion. This worked remarkably well until the
church began to lose its own moral authority.
Popes held power because people believed. When they began to operate too often
and too strongly in the cities of men trouble began. Papal excess began to be noted by
pilgrims. Money and power become a problem and soon the states that were on the losing
end of the money and power began to grow resentful. Here we see the conflict between
ideology and realpolitik before the invention of the word realpolitik.
Theological conflicts in this system had international political consequences. 1517
Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz, sponsors a sale of indulgences to pay for, among
other things, construction of Saint Peter's in Rome. In response, Martin Luther, an
Augustinian monk, posts his 95 theses on the door of the castle chapel in Wittenburg,
Germany, where Luther is a university professor. The theses invite debate over the legitimacy
of the sale of indulgences.
1520 Luther publishes his three famous treatises: "An Open Letter to the Christian
Nobility" "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and "On the Freedom of a Christian." He
wins powerful support.
1521 Luther is excommunicated. He refuses to recant unless proven wrong by the
Bible or by "clear reason."
1530 Many German princes and cities sign the Augsburg Confession as an
expression of the evangelical faith.
1555 The Peace of Augsburg provides that each German prince can determine the
religious affiliation of the territory he rules. The Reformation sweeps Northern and Eastern
Europe. A reassertion of the principle cuius regio, eius religio.
But now that is a problem - since the principle is contested by the dominant
religion.
 The Thirty Years War 1618-1648
Power vacuums invite conflict. The Thirty years war was one of the most
destructive conflicts in European history. The war was fought primarily (though not
exclusively) in Germany and at various points involved most of the countries of Europe.
Naval warfare also reached overseas and shaped the colonial formation of future nations.
The Holy Roman Emperor, one of the Hapsburg family, was supported by the Pope.
The war had dual goals.
1. Restore the authority of the Hapsburgs
2. Restore the authority of the Roman Catholic Church
As the war progressed the various generals leading troops complicated things by
pursuing their own agendas.
Opposing the Hapsburgs and the Roman church were Sweden, Denmark and the
Protestant princes of Germany.
Initially the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and
Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance
of power within the Empire played a significant part. Gradually the war developed into a
more general conflict involving most of the European powers. In this general phase the war
became more a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political preeminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers, and
less specifically about religion.
As the fighting spread other factors became more dominant. The idea in the
minds of people was that the fight was over religion, but the actual fighting began to be a
power struggle between Habsburg’s supported by the Pope and the Bourbon’s who were
willing to switch sides in order to get their own power. Not quite a Protestant/Catholic brawl
- Protestants alone did not have enough power - but with some Catholic allies they could
hold back the power of the Popes. At this point the war ceases to be ABOUT religion and
becomes about nations - religion now is used as part of the ideology to mobilize for war.
25% of the civilian population was killed in these wars. It probably took Germany
75-100 years to recover.
Important - it also left Germany with the lesson that weak states suffer greatly.
Think about how this will play out in the centuries ahead.
King Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the moment of victory - his military genius
lost.
Hapsburgs almost won but Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu switched sides and
took the Protestant Cause.
Richelieu was an interesting guy - 1585-1642
Catholic Bishop - promoted to Cardinal by Pope Gregory - he felt that the Church’s
role was not one of politics - thus he was able to detach himself from the religious side of the
war and examine what was in Frances interest.
He saw himself loyal to the Pope only in matters of religion.
Richelieu adhered to the maxim that "the ends justify the means." Although he
devoutly believed in the mission of the Roman Church, he sought to assign the church a more
practical role. Richelieu argued that the state is above everything, and that religion is a mere
instrument to promote the policies of the state.
By 1631 he had crushed Huguenot resistance, severely punished nobles who
plotted against the king, and replaced his enemies in the government. In addition, he
expanded the king's authority in the provinces through the use of royal agents called
intendants.
Richelieu insisted that the king apply the law with severity, otherwise the state
could not survive. He emphasized that rigorous punishment of even small crimes would
forestall greater ones. Through this reasoning, Richelieu provided his sovereign a rationale
for the harsh rule he knew to be requisite with strengthening and maintaining the authority
of the French State.
His first loyalty was to the French State - Richelieu developed the idea of balance
of power.
He believed that nations needed to respond to self-interest first.
Quote by Richelieu: “If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will
find something in them to hang him.”
One lesson that reality needs to trump ideology - even religious ideology - was not
lost on subsequent generations of diplomats and national leaders.