What did the major European states have in common in 1815? What were the most important differences between them?
Gary Archer, M2632321
A221, TMA01
What did the major European states have in common in 1815? What were the most important differences between them?
When attempting to answer a question such as this there is always the risk that one takes the line of least resistance and states simply that, after years of conflict, post Napoleon Europe was now at peace. However, to do so would be little more than cheating one-self and would achieve little.
Perhaps the key to the answer lies in defining the meaning of the word "state" in the context of early nineteenth century Europe since its latter day interpretation was only then beginning to emerge. Indeed there would be a valid argument for suggesting that a modern "state" has little or no relation to its forebear.
It is easy now to look at the "state" as being a central force through which our daily lives are controlled, and over which we exert little or no influence. It may be regarded as the embodiment of government, through which we interact with other people both within and without our national boundaries. The course unit, when examining Poggi, claims that the state consists of three basic aspects:
i) its internal features as an international apparatus;
ii) the relations between that apparatus and the society which it controls/serves;
iii) the external relations between states.
However, throughout early history, Europe and much of the world beyond, had been dominated by the "divine right" principle in which the monarch was seen as a god-like, all powerful, figure. This had already seen England rent asunder under Charles I, when he attempted to impose his will above that of Parliament over 150 years earlier and had lead Britain towards the type of reforms which Europe had yet to undertake. Indeed, the principle of hereditary monarchy was still, at this point, one of the cornerstones of European civilisation, having recently even been restored in post-Napoleonic France. However, as Anderson observes, its influence and power were themselves subject to a form of control and lay between the extremes represented by Britain in which a "powerful and self-confident government.... limited the power of the monarchy" and Russia where the "religious awe which... buttressed the position of the tsar had been supplemented by a vast bureaucratic and military structure of which the ruler was the absolute master."
A221, TMA01
What did the major European states have in common in 1815? What were the most important differences between them?
When attempting to answer a question such as this there is always the risk that one takes the line of least resistance and states simply that, after years of conflict, post Napoleon Europe was now at peace. However, to do so would be little more than cheating one-self and would achieve little.
Perhaps the key to the answer lies in defining the meaning of the word "state" in the context of early nineteenth century Europe since its latter day interpretation was only then beginning to emerge. Indeed there would be a valid argument for suggesting that a modern "state" has little or no relation to its forebear.
It is easy now to look at the "state" as being a central force through which our daily lives are controlled, and over which we exert little or no influence. It may be regarded as the embodiment of government, through which we interact with other people both within and without our national boundaries. The course unit, when examining Poggi, claims that the state consists of three basic aspects:
i) its internal features as an international apparatus;
ii) the relations between that apparatus and the society which it controls/serves;
iii) the external relations between states.
However, throughout early history, Europe and much of the world beyond, had been dominated by the "divine right" principle in which the monarch was seen as a god-like, all powerful, figure. This had already seen England rent asunder under Charles I, when he attempted to impose his will above that of Parliament over 150 years earlier and had lead Britain towards the type of reforms which Europe had yet to undertake. Indeed, the principle of hereditary monarchy was still, at this point, one of the cornerstones of European civilisation, having recently even been restored in post-Napoleonic France. However, as Anderson observes, its influence and power were themselves subject to a form of control and lay between the extremes represented by Britain in which a "powerful and self-confident government.... limited the power of the monarchy" and Russia where the "religious awe which... buttressed the position of the tsar had been supplemented by a vast bureaucratic and military structure of which the ruler was the absolute master."
