This brings us to the principles of the settlement overall. Why was it such an extensive priority for the restored monarchy to be successful? The statesmen had suffered from a tide of revolutions following the French Revolution of 1790, and they wished to uphold power. This was especially important to Metternich of Austria. Austria was an enormous empire consisting of various ethnical groups and suffering from economic depression. Metternich wished to promote fraternity between the rulers and an active policy of intervention in case of revolutions. As concluded in Years of Nationalism : "A man has an interest in putting out the flames when his neighbour's house is on fire". As the Congress was held in Vienna, and Metternich was the main architect of the settlement, this principle became a cornerstone of the settlement. Here again we see that revenge between one nation and another was not an important issue, rather the statesmen allied themselves against the revolutionary masses.
Another interest of Metternich's was to provide for peace in a stable Europe. This view was shared by other war-weary nations. It was Britain's representative, Lord Castlereigh, who had a distinct view on how to restore peace in Europe. Castlereigh stated that this would be done by restoring a just equilibrium, a balance of power. This marked another major principle of the settlement: that no major power should be in the position to threaten the independence of the rest. Metternich was pleased; war would have caused the collapse of the ramshackle of the Austrian Empire. Here again the statesmen worked to secure their own interests, which were to provide security for the continent, not to take revenge on France.
The territorial changes were a complex issue to fix: they had to be a compromise between the rival interests of the great powers and to provide for 'buffer states' around France. Germany was not united, but rather a collection of small princedoms sharing a language on the eastern front of France. The statesmen were alarmed by this, as there was the danger of the smaller provinces falling under French influence. Thus the German confederation was created; a loose collection of 39 states including Prussia and Austria, and dominated by Austria. The Austrian Netherlands were placed under Danish control to provide for security in the north. As compensation, Austria received some wealthy Italian provinces (Italy wasn't united either ). Metternich claimed that this too was necessary to 'protect' Italian regions from France. Belgium was declared neutral to provide for yet another buffer state on the northern border of France. These territorial adjustments speak for themselves: security was a major concern, revenge wasn't. providing for security by the creation of these buffer states was understandable, as France had terrorised the European countries for decades, 'liberating' for example the Spanish and Italian people.
During the congress, in 1815 Napoleon escaped his exile in Elba and resumed power. Waging war for his famous '100 days'. His first words upon landing in France are reported to have been " The congress is dissolved". It was not. The statesmen were anxious not to interrupt their work. Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo, and the Vienna settlement remained mainly unaltered. However, Napoleon's return did result in a new peace treaty, a harsher one than in 1814. The Second Treaty of Paris placed an army of occupation in northern France for five years, restricted French borders and demanded that the stolen artefacts be returned. This was still not a very humiliating treaty, as compared to later ones, for instance the Treaty of Versailles in 1918, for the indemnity payments were manageable.
So yes, the statesmen at Vienna could definitely be blamed for putting their personal ambitions before the nationalistic interests of their people, but not for seeking vengeance on France. The settlement concerning France and her former allies was lenient, and aided the construction of a stable regime. They made a settlement which gave basis for re-establishing good terms between the nations and did not result in hostilities.
This essay was written under examination conditions, in the IB1 end-of-year exams 2002.
This essay was an IB History HL question from Paper 3. (3 essays -2h 30min)
Evaluation by Niklas Andersson:
18/20
A well structured answer -something of the national ambitions, which caused division, could be mentioned.