Venerable members of this group:

Noung$, mauler@+, legbagede, The Debutante@, aneurin, Voodoo Chile, tinymurmur, CloudStrife, Tlachtga, Kalkin, bishopred1, bookw56, Velox, Haschel47, McCart42, QuietLight, Tiefling, KGBNick, Domin, Zibblsnrt, pylon, Diabolic, Halcyonide, Two Sheds, gitm, LeoDV, Asphodel, Palpz, phiz, tokki, The Lush, Aerobe, MCX, Bakeroo, Mercuryblues, Nadine_2, Gorgonzola, Lila, futilelord, Auduster, per ou, dragon rage, yudabioye, TerribleAspect, corvus, Nzen, mcd
This group of 47 members is led by Noung$

Overview

Known as Toshkent in Uzbek, the city is the cultural and economic center of Central Asia and the capital of the new nation of Uzbekistan. With well over 2 million people (1991 estimate of 2,113,000) within its massively sprawling bounds, the city comprises the largest population of any of the cities in the ex-Soviet republics that make up the region. Four fifths of the people living in the city are Russians or Uzbeks, but there are notable minorities of Tatars, Ukrainians and Jews as well. Sitting at an elevation of more than 450 meters or roughly 1,500 feet above sea level, the city is surrounded by rich farmlands and intersected by numerous canals which flow from the Chirchiq River.

Modern Tashkent is a leading producer in all things cotton. Though wheat, rice, vegetables of various types and even silkworms are grown in the surrounding area, the majority of the farming and even the industry revolves around the cotton industry. These industries range from manufacturers of textile machinery or agriculture items to textiles. The surrounding areas though, as well as the other nearby cities, make up the most industrialized area in Uzbekistan, as well as the most industrialized area of the new republics.

The city is rich in its institutions, and contains numerous colleges and research institutes, including the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, which was established in 1943. Among its cultural buildings Tashkent includes a large array of theatres, stadiums, libraries, museums and parks. Notable among these are the Navoi Public Library and the Navoi Theatre of Opera and Ballet. Also one can find, among the museums, one of the two remaining Usmani Qurans. Unfortunately a 1966 earthquake destroyed most of the few remaining ancient structures left in Tashkent, leaving very few left standing, though one among that number is the Barakkhan Madrasah.

History

Tashkent is believed to have been first established around the first or second centuries BC. Originally mentioned in Persian chronicles as Chach (the city was known in China as Yuni), it would not gain its present name of Tashkent (meaning “Stone Village”) until roughly the 11th century AD. From its establishment onwards the city quickly grew to be an important stopping point on the trade routes between the east and west and eventually into a supplier of trade itself, along these routes. The city was conquered during the Arab expansion of the 8th century AD and would be ruled by a secession of various Muslim kingdoms for the better part of 500 years, becoming a major stronghold against the Turkic incursions from Transoxania.

In the early 13th century, the city fell to the Mongol armies and remained under their sway for many a year. It would be a major city in the empire of Timur (Tamerlane) but eventually fell to the control of the Shaybanids. It was during this time that the star of Tashkent would fall though. As the European explorers brought more and more trade over the oceans, the importance of the old land routes, including Tashkent, fell considerably. And so Tashkent found itself isolated and nowhere near as robust a city as it once was. And though the people managed to claim their independence for a short time, the city was but a shadow of its former self. In 1809 the city was annexed by the Khanate of Kokand, but by this time the Russians were on the doorstep and the city would change hands again in 1865, when the Russian armies conquered the area. From here Tashkent would become one of the main supply points for the Russian push towards the Indian Ocean.

By the time of the Russian conquest, Tashkent was already well known by the Russian Empire, being a leading center of trade with them and an important city of about 70,000 people. It would only take two years, for the Russians to make Tashkent the leading city of the new province of Turkistan and the city leapt forward in growth, with a massive influx of Russian colonists and entrepreneurs into the area. The new colonists set up almost a dual city format, with the new European design city springing up alongside the former city and providing the base from which the Russians administrated and integrated their Central Asian conquests.

During the Russian revolution a short lived bid for independence was made, but Tashkent was re-integrated into the USSR in 1917 and became the capital of the Soviet Republic of Turkistan. When Turkistan was split into multiple Soviet Republics in 1924 Tashkent lost its status to Samarkand though. That status would be regained in 1930 when Tashkent became the capital of the Uzbekistan SSR. Over the next few decades Tashkent swelled in size and in importance, becoming the fourth largest city in the USSR, trailing only Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev.

Following the independence of Uzbekistan on December 29, 1991, the city would become a true capital in its own right. Modern Tashkent seems to taken some of the best from its time within the USSR, having a massive and well developed administrative structure to the city and a large amount of universities and other institutes of higher learning. The earthquake of 1966, while devastating both to the population, of which 300,000 were left homeless, and to the older parts of the city, has allowed the people of Tashkent to improve their city in many ways. These include parks and a modern metro rail system, making Tashkent the only city in Central Asia to be able to boast of their own rail system. Along with this, the Uzbeks in a stirring show of respect named various streets after great people in the nations who came to their assistance following the earthquake.

Sources
"Tashkent." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service 11 June 2005 .
“Tashkent.” Working Papers on Central Asia and Iran. 1996. University of Minnesota – Department of Slavic and Central Asian Languages and Literature June 11, 2005 http://www.iles.umn.edu/faculty/bashiri/Tashkent%20folder/Tashkent.html
“Tashkent.” Uzbekistan – History 2003. Uzland. June 11, 2005 http://www.tashkent.org/uzland/index.html
Thanks to mr100percent for pointing out the existance of an Usmani Quran in Tashkent
Overview

Astana is the current capital of the nation of Kazakhstan, an ex-Soviet nation which lies almost in the absolute center of the landmass that is Asia. Formerly a colonial conquest of Russia, the city seceded during the last days of the USSR with the rest of what was to become Kazakhstan. Like many cities associated with Russia, Astana has had many names in its past. From its founding in 1824 until 1961 the city was called Akmolinsk. After 1961 the city had its name changed several times, to Tselinograd (meaning “City of the Virgin Lands”) from 1961 to 1992, to Aqmola (meaning “White Grave”) from 1992 to 1998 and finally to Astana (meaning “Capital”) up until the present.

Much of the population is employed by the railways that dominate the city and connect China and Russia with the rest of the region, but light industry and agriculture are also mainstays of the Astana economy. The city has experienced tremendous growth in the last few years, with the population exploding up to 520,000 by the year 2000 (from an estimated 250,000 in 1995.). The current public works have invigorated the city and helped it in the bid to become a political center of the region.

History

Astana was first established as a Russian military outpost in 1824, as just one of the many in the chain made to support the Russian push towards the Indian Ocean. The outpost was not founded on any known old city or settlement, as the majority of the population prior to the Russia colonial push was of the nomadic Kazakh tribes who were descendents of the Mongol conquerors of the region. The site would quickly become an official town, by 1862, and then the administrative center of the region known as Akmolinsk, formally achieving that rank in 1868.

By 1939 the population had swelled to over 33,000 people and the city was made an oblast, or provincial center. But Astana was still a sleepy mining town with little or no use made of the massive amount of arable lands that surrounded it. During the height of the Soviet period, starting with Khrushchev’s, “Virgin and Idle Lands Campaign”, the city was the scene of a massive influx of colonists from the rest of Russia. It was during this time that Astana was made the capital of the entirety of the Kazakh S.S.R. and that the city saw a massive growth in industry and in public works, while the area became one of the Soviet bread baskets.

Following the declaration of independence, from Russia, by Kazakhstan, the city was renamed Aqmola. Astana would be made the capitol of the new country in 1994 and have its name changed to its fourth and, thus far, final incarnation in 1997. The reasons for the change in capitol are probably only known by the president Nursultan Nazarbavev, but reasons as far reaching as, moving the capitol away from possible dangerous borders, to controlling the majority, ethnic Russian northern populations have been stated.

Whatever the reason, the city has grown massively in population in the last few years, reaching 520,000 people by the year 2000. The city itself, not only is the meeting place for almost all the main railroads that link China to Europe, but is also in the midst of a bid to become the premier cultural center of all of Central Asian, ex-Soviet states. Since the change in the location of the capital to the city now bearing the name capital, massive amounts of oil money have been poured into making the city just that cultural center (Sort of like Brazil’s attempt years ago, one just hopes this attempt ends with the result of achieving noted success). Though the quality of the architecture is not seen as, in any form, awe inspiring, it does include a massive presidential home, many new public works buildings and innumerable parks and monuments.



Sources
"Astana." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service 10 June 2005 .
“Astana - History” AsiaTravelingNet 2005 June 10, 2005 http://www.asiatravelling.net/kazakhstan/astana/astana_history.htm.
“Encyclopedia: Astana” Nationmaster.com. 2005. NationMaster June 10, 2005 http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Astana#Geography.
Overview

Samarkand of today is a modern Uzbek city of about 370,000 people situated along the southern portion of the nation of Uzbekistan. Samarkand was once one of the great trade cities of the ancient world but declined over the ages; the Samarkand of modern times owes its rebirth to the Russian railroad. Where once the city made via the rich trade between east and west, now it depends on agriculture and light industry such as silk spinning, canning, clothing production and tobacco.

The city itself consists of two parts, the more modern area, dating from after the Russian conquest of the city and the ancient buildings of the city, dating back as far as the 14th century AD. Of the current city, the original model had revolved around a wall built in the 11th century AD in which six roads led towards the center of the city from each of the six gates. The gates themselves were destroyed by the Russians after their conquest of the city, but the destruction of those gates did little to alter the overall look and feel of the old city. Still within the bounds of the old wall are some of the great examples of Central Asian architecture left to us today.

Dating back as far as the time of Timur (the city had been razed to the ground by Genghis Khan), are the Bibi-Khanin mosque, which was commissioned by one of Timur’s wives and the tomb of Timur, the Gur-e Amir. The Ak Saray tomb was built in the mid 15th century and the Rigestan Square has several madrasahs which were built three different rulers. The visible decorations of the ancient structures of Samarkand, whether it be frescos, gold, or just the vivid colors help to make up the majesty of old Samarkand. The Russian part of town, on the other hand, made up only a small part of the city prior to the Soviet period, in which it was greatly expanded, but does include many public buildings, parks, theatres and several institutes of higher learning.

History

One of the great cities of the silk road, Samarkand (also known as Samarqand) was a center of world civilization for more than a millenium. The city was originally built on the site of the even more ancient city, Afrosiab, which had controlled the area from the 4th to 3rd century BC. Samarkand was known as Marakanda during the 4th century BC, and served as the capitol of Sogdiana. As Sogdiana was a semi-autonomous state within the Persian Empire and Marakanda was a city of much repute, it was unable to avoid the notice of one Alexander the Great, who captured it in 329 BC.

The Turkic tribes of the central Asian steppe would inherit the city in the 6th century AD, but would lose it to the Arab conquests by the 8th century. Eventually the city would rise to prosperity again, this time under the Abbasid Dynasty, who made it into the central city along the trade route from Baghdad to China. The city would continue to grow even as it shifted hands throughout the centuries, with the Samanid kingdom of Khorasan ruling it from 874 until 999 AD and the Seljuks of Khwarazm after that. The leaders of Khwarazm are said to have forced the hand of a then little known nomad warlord in the early 13th century AD. It would turn out to a devastating decision for Samarkand, as the city was smashed asunder by Genghis Khan, a devastating blow it would take Samarkand more than a century to recover from.

Samarkand would be rebuilt though, this time under the control of the Chagatai Khanate, which ruled a vast stretch of area from what is now western China to the gateway of Iran. Samarkand would grow away from the eastern areas of the Khanate though, as it became the center of a more and more cosmopolitan, Arabic Khanate and lost its nomadic roots. It was under this internal strife that the legendary Timur (Tamerlane) would rise to power over the city. Forcibly separating Samarkand, and with it, the western areas of the Khanate from the rest, he would make it his capitol and the center of a military machine the likes of which had not been seen for generations.

Not only did Timur develop the military power of his new land though, but through spending and shipping back skilled war captives, he invigorated the city, making it a center of learning and one of the most beautiful cities then in the world. But Timur’s grip would not outlive him, and the empire he created had no plan for his death. The Timur Empire would begin to fail almost immediately, revolts wracking it from end to end, especially in the Iranian lands. Though Samarkand itself would continue to prosper economically and culturally, the power that protected it continued to wane.

By the year 1500, the Timur Empire had shifted its center south and fallen in power enough around Samarkand that the city was an easy target for the Uzbek Khanates to the northwest and the city fell under their control. But the city was not near as much of a prize these days. With the new mode of trade being on the oceans, the position of Samarkand was greatly reduced. Not to mention that three empires now spanned the areas to the south and helped even more so to funnel trade away from the old land routes. The Mughal Empire, having been established by the remnants of the Timur Empire, was now in control of northern, and much of central, India as well as modern Afghanistan. The Safavids had seized control of Iran, and the massive Ottoman Empire had effectively bridged Eastern Europe with the Red Sea.

So it was that Samarkand continued to decline, now under the control of the Emirate of Bukhara, and the city became virtually uninhabited by the 18th century. Indeed it is said that there was no one living in the city from 1720 to 1770 AD. Recovery of the city would come with the Russian conquest of the region though. Upon becoming a provincial capital in Russia and receiving a railroad through the city, Samarkand would grow again, both in population and economically. From 1924 to 1936 the city was the capitol of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, though it lost that title after 1936 to the city of Tashkent. But today Samarkand continues to be one of the political and cultural centers of the Uzbek peoples and the newly reborn Uzbek nation, Uzbekistan.




Sources
"Samarkand." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service 3 June 3, 2005 .

“Samarkand Uzbekistan.” OrexCA 2005. OrexCa.com Creative Group June 6, 2005 http://www.orexca.com/samarkand.shtml.

“Samarkand” Encyclopedia.com June 7, 2005

"Mom, do they have 17th of May in other countries?"

The 17th of May is Norway's national day, carnival and festival, all stirred together, wrapped in a Norwegian flag and served with ice cream. It is a day all Norwegians feel something about, and mostly what they feel is something good.

Origins

In the month of May, 1814, 112 august men from all parts of Norway¹ gathered at Eidsvoll in the middle of the country to conspire against Sweden. The country had just been released from a 400-year long union with Denmark, only to be given away to its big brother in the east as a kind of peace token. Nationalism was growing strong in Norway at this time, and the people did not particularly want to be given away.

Therefore these founding fathers assembled, on April 11, and started discussing how to create an independent Norway. On May 17, they had made a constitution and elected a king: The Danish prince Christian Frederik.

Norway would not gain independence from Sweden until 1905, but the grain had been sown and the country had made her constitution.

Celebration

Some Norwegians started celebrating the day almost immediately. It had a bit of a head start. Supporters of the union with Sweden suggested the autumnal November 4, the day when the union agreement had been signed, as a national day. The springday 17th of May had it beaten hands down when it came to weather.

The celebration of the day was frowned upon and even threatened by Swedish authorities. Norwegian politicians preferred not to annoy the king in Sweden, but the nationalist students felt that annoyance was just what was needed. They made strongly pro-Norwegian songs and shouted provocative Hurrahs in the streets.

Evolution

In 1829, a steamship called Constitutionen arrived in Christiania on the 17th of May. Many people assembled to receive it, cry hurrah and sing nationalistic songs. They continued celebrating throughout the day. At 10 pm, the city was supposed to be quiet. The leader of the police told the crowds to return home, but they refused - mostly because they wanted to see what happened next. Since words could not disperse them, the mayor decided to use soldiers on horses instead. And now the crowds scattered.

No one was seriously injured, but in the following days, many celebrants were interrogated by the police. The student and nationalist Henrik Wergeland was named as the main person behind the demonstration. Although the pro-Swedish authorities had won this battle, his 17th of May movement would prove stronger in the long run.

In 1836, the military commander of the fortress at Akershus sent a military parade through the streets of Christiania, to great joy among the people. A month later, he was released from his position, and king Carl Johan disbanded the Norwegian Parliament soon after.

Since their careful walk on the tightrope had still made them fall, the politicians abandoned the appeasement line and started celebrating the 17th of May as well. This made it a political day, with the two main parties - called Right and Left - each pursuing their issues on this national feastday.

The entire country was united behind the dissolution of the union in 1905, and for a while the national day became beloved of all Norwegians. But with the growth of international socialism, the workers abandoned the 17th, preferring instead to celebrate Labour day on the 1st of May.

On April 9, 1940, Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany, and any acknowledgment of the Norwegian day for independence and freedom was prohibited. After the war, this lead to all people once more gathering about the day. The 17th of May became thoroughly depoliticised, which it remains to this day.

A Children's Day

You will see no military parades marching in the streets on the national holiday. Instead there are children, from all the schools and kindergartens, dressed in fine new clothes and bunads, waving flags and singing songs. Hurrahs are cried, but not in a provocative manner. Brass bands, accompanied by twirlers, play the same five songs or so over and over again.

The children receive goodies, such as eggnog², hot dogs and as much ice cream as they can eat. The older teenagers who are graduating from high school - the russ, dressed in the red or blue of the Norwegian flag - behave like children again. Only the intermediate teenagers don't celebrate the day much, as they are to bed after extensive partying the day before.

In the afternoon, the adults are allowed to parade as well, together with their fellow members of an organisation such as a sports club, dancing school or dog-owners' forum.

Local specialities

Oslo - in Norway's capital, the King and Queen wave to the people passing by the balcony of their castle. The parade follows the street of Karl Johan - indeed, it is ironically named after the old Swedish king who was so opposed to the 17th of May celebration.

Bergen - the second largest city of Norway always wants to be different. In this city they have bands consisting entirely of drummers, who make very much noise.

Svalbard - the unfortunate part of Norway does not get to experience the 17th of May as a spring day, as it is still mostly snow covered. Svalbard, or Spitsbergen, is an island far north of the mainland, and so always has low temperatures. Sometimes they even have snow on the 17th of May. Still, I don't think they would have preferred November.

The National Anthem of Norway

Ja, vi elsker dette landet
som det stiger frem,
furet, værbitt over vannet
med de tusen hjem, -
elsker, elsker det og tenker
på vår far og mor
og den saganatt som senker
drømme på vår jord.

Yes, we love this country
As it rises,
Rugged and weaher-beaten out of the sea,
With a thousand homes.
We love it, we love it and think
Of our father and mother,
And of the night of saga that makes
Dreams descend upon this our land.

¹ Except for the delegations from the North, who had too far to go to be able to get there on time. Tough beans.
² Eggnog without any alcoholic additions, natch.

Introduction

This is here to discuss the influence of the balance of power on the European Concert system. It's a detailed historical analysis of the shifting balance and is designed to provide the reader with a more intricate discussion of the reality of the idea of a balance of power.

The Discussion
“Only part of the seamless web of interacting and conflicting interests that make up the substance of diplomacy and cannot be understood outside that context”

Is how one historian (Michael Sheehan) has described the Concert system. This is a key point in understanding the Concert of powers. They existed within the realm of diplomacy and were not its only aspect. This means “the balance of power” did not only influence the Concert of European powers as such, rather it constantly affected the foreign policies of the states of Europe. Therefore a wider assessment of the nature of the importance of the balance of power is needed to understand its influence on the Concert of European powers. In fact perhaps a better way of approaching the basis of the question would be to widen it to how far the balance of power influenced the relations of the powers of Europe until the Crimean War.

To assess the importance of the balance of power one needs first to ascertain what is meant by the concept. It is a term that has had various reinterpretations. But it was undoubtedly important in the realm of international politics within this period. A key idea embedded in the concept is the distribution of power between states so that no single state or alliance has overwhelming or a preponderant amount of power(Michael Sheehan). This situation can be seen to be very significant in post Napoleonic Europe. The dominance of France from the 1790s to the early 1810s emphasised the need to attempt to construct a system which would prevent such a destructive force emerging. However the idea of a balance of power can also be a pseudonym for the distribution of power at a given moment such as 1815 with the Vienna settlement. In fact it can be seen as both. Yet one must consider the static and fluid elements to the idea. Is the balance of power fundamentally static or does it facilitate gradual shifts international politics without widespread upheaval. I would argue that in the period 1815-54 the latter was the case. The Crimean War marked the culmination of the process (increasing willingness of states to fight in their interests and of others not to intervene) that ended that phenomenon and established a changed situation where significant wars became common. Examples can be found: 1859 Piedmont against Austria, 1866 Prussia against Austria, and 1870 Prussia against France. Although another Great War such as that of Revolutionary/Napoleonic Europe did not occur, the importance of a Restoration balance of power had been superseded by the predominance of national interests in a changing Europe. One must appreciate the importance of nationalism in this phenomenon. This does not mean a balance of powers did not exist at all. Rather it indicates a more violent means of it shifting and a lack of the congress/concert system acting more as an effective check on serious war. But one also needs to bear in mind that war did occur between 1815 and 1856. The concert system and negotiation between states during this period can be seen to have tended to facilitate an emphasis on the wider implication of a particular action. They did not however prevent national interests from being a dominant force.

The Vienna Settlement of 1815 was first of all intended to prevent France from ever regaining primacy in Europe. This involved a ring of strengthened states surrounding it, for example a Prussia in control of the Rhineland. Yet before the settlement the allies of the 4th Alliance against France had repeatedly stated the importance they placed on a balance of power. The preamble to the Treaty of Charmont speaks of a “just balance between powers”. This is an important point to note: the sense of common morality and justice between the powers. It was this which established the viability of a balance of power. Yet opposed to this idea of a common sense of justice is the reality of the self-interest of states. In 1815 five key powers emerged: France, Russia, Great Britain, Austria and Prussia. Each of these states had their own agenda throughout this period. These agendas were affected by the reality of the success of specific aims. So although ostensibly a balance of power was the key aim in reality within continental Europe there were certain ongoing power struggles. These were at various stages Austria versus Russia over Italy, Austria versus France over Italy, Austria versus individual Italian states over Italy, Russia versus the Ottoman Empire. At various moments certain political crises occurred which precipitated the inflammation of these conflicts. They could also provide an opportunity for a new found influence. These states were affected by territorial and ideological decisions. They were also influenced by their socio-economic and political problems at home, for example France with the 1830 Revolution. In 1829 Polignac proposed the splitting of the Ottoman Empire and a reordering of Europe. Although this extreme policy was rejected it indicates the willingness of states to follow a radical policy when domestic politics are going badly. The Revolution also naturally produced a different foreign policy. This shows the potential influence a particular government can have on the balance of power and the willingness for it to shift. All these factors make Restoration Europe international politics difficult to assess.

First one needs to understand the origins of the Concert of Powers idea. The Quadruple Alliance and the Holy Alliance were the two key official power groupings during the early stages of this period. The Quadruple Alliance was formed with conflicting ideas on its purpose. The Tsar sought to undermine it with his Holy Alliance, France was initially excluded and Austria under Metternich saw it as a means of sustaining its power and combating French and Russian expansionism. Prussia was interested in expanding its influence within the German states (but was relatively quiet) whilst Great Britain with Castlereagh saw the purpose of the Alliance as being the means for the “liberation of a great proportion of the Continent of Europe from the military domination of France”.

The way the Concert system developed was linked to the politics of the age. Alexander I after supporting Austrian influence in Italy to ensure its support for Russian expansion in Poland shifted his policy on Italy. Russian agents began contacting the sects and encouraging them. It needs to be understood that they were not inciting Revolution but aiding the setting up of anti-Austrian forces. A keynote of this period is the fear of Revolution encouraging conservative unity. Alexander I was interested in undermining the Austro-British entente which moved at Vienna to restrict Russian demands. Austria had made several mistakes in Italy which encouraged Piedmontese support for Russian diplomatic moves to secure an alliance . Alexander I was trying to undermine the Balance of Power established at Vienna by trying as Metternich put it “to sap the foundations of Austria. Metternich responded and specifically sought to convey to the Tsar the danger of his actions in Italy for the Restoration order of Europe. Thus the Tsar failed to reply to the 1818 Memoire of the Piedmontese which had proposed a scheme for the reordering of all existing thrones and frontiers. By 1820 virtually all subversive Russian action in Italy had ceased. The Tsar had been convinced of the prevailing importance for Russia of the maintenance of conservative order. The fear of liberalism and destabilising forces were compelling. It meant the Tsar was more willing to accept the balance of power as established by the 1815 settlement. Looking at the Concert which this links into is very revealing.

The 1818 Concert (or Congress) at Aix-La-Chapelle (in the Prussian Rhineland) was deeply significant. It saw the French led by Richelieu attempt to establish a Franco-Russian entente to undermine the Quadruple Alliance and recast the Balance of Power in Europe. One must take into account an Anglo-Austrian understanding which played a vital role in keeping Russia’s ambitions in check whilst ensuring France was not a threat. The French felt the terms of the Vienna Settlement were harsh and wanted some form of change or more importantly potential for it. At this Congress the Tsar attempted to dilute the Quadruple Alliance and use his Holy Alliance to control European affairs and guarantee thrones, territories and political systems. The Tsar wanted to rearrange Europe with Russia as the dominant force. Castlereagh was unwilling to agree and saw the Quadruple Alliance as the key to stability in Europe. He wanted to adopt Article 6 of the Constitution of the Quadruple Alliance as the basis for future Concerts. This provided the clause that when problems arose sovereigns or ministers could call a meeting of powers:

“For the purpose of consulting upon their common interests, and for consideration of the measures which at each of these periods shall be considered the most salutary for the repose and prosperity of nations and for the maintenance of the Peace of Europe.”

Metternich, though attracted by the Tsar’s idea which would potentially help the Habsburg Empire if he had a great enough influence over the Tsar, adopted Castlereagh’s position. This Anglo-Austrian Alliance thus helped maintain the 1815 Vienna Settlement. The French were dismayed and Richelieu lost his position as a result. The Tsar was becoming increasing concerned about the conservative order of things and was willing to compromise. One can see that 1818 was a crucial year which saw the balance of power as established in 1815 maintained. There was an Anglo-Austrian Alliance to hinder Russian and French attempts to shift the balance of power in Europe. Yet this indicates the underlying importance of national interests within European affairs. There was a lack of agreement on what was an acceptable balance of power. As further problems developed this issue kept coming to the foreground.

The early 1820s marked a significant shift in European politics. It was precipitated by Revolutions in smaller/less powerful states. At this time there was disagreement between Britain and Austria on how to deal with Revolutions. So although they had a strong alliance with the friendship of Metternich and Castlereagh the fundamentally different outlooks of their respective governments was naturally problematic. The first problem arose with the 1820 Revolution in Spain (Began on January 1st and by March the King was forced to restore the 1812 Constitution and abolish the Inquisition) which forced King Ferdinand VII to restore the radical liberal constitution of 1812. There was no immediate Concert of Powers. Rather Britain and Austria advocated taking no action. Britain followed a careful non-interventionist foreign policy where possible. Castlereagh stated:

“We shall be found in our place when actual danger menaces the system of Europe; but this country cannot and will not act upon abstract and speculative Principles of Precaution” (Stated in a Confidential State Paper on 5th May 1820)
Metternich on the other hand did believe in pre-empting problems with his spy network in the Italian states. Yet both countries in this case were willing to allow the conservative Restoration Monarchy of Spain to be transformed. Britain was not interested in intervention unless it involved a radical shift in the balance of power in Europe which might affect it. Austria did fear liberalism and a potential destabilising of its Italian provinces. But more importantly it sought to keep French power at a minimum. France with its Bourbon ties with Spain had a major interest and was most committed to intervention. Austria did not wish to allow that precedent. Russia with the Tsar was now increasingly becoming a conservative force and was more than willing to try and undermine the Anglo-Austro alliance and bolster France at Austria’s expense. This complex web was in place without a concert. Indeed the fact a concert didn’t meet indicates its complimentary nature. They were the places where these divisions met face to face and were argued. The key to them was how the conflicting interests of these nations interacted.

Early in 1820 one can see division between powers over the correct response to the changing of a states internal political system. There was a lack of agreement and the change was accepted but unwilling by France and Russia. Then a vital set of events unfolded. There was Revolution in 1820 in the Two Sicilies and in 1821 in Piedmont and Greece. These challenges to the Restoration order had serious consequences. The Neapolitan Revolution in 1820-1 saw a constitution granted and widespread support from peasants, provincial land-owning middle-classes and craftsmen amongst many others. It like the Spanish Revolution was a liberal reaction against a restrictive conservative regime. There would be reforms such as the introduction of a limited franchise elections. In a sense this revolution was explicitly against the Vienna Congress order of things. There were revolts in Sicily (this was different to the Naples revolt and was more limited in its support base) and Piedmont. Piedmont also saw a constitution declared. The reaction to these rebellions was wholly different. Austria now saw the whole Restoration order as being under threat as new forces which had been unleashed by the French Revolution were undermining the Vienna Settlement for Italy. Britain agreed with Metternich’s analysis. Castlereagh saw it as being an Austrian affair and not a Quadruple Alliance one. One can see here the British desire to maintain peace in Europe and combat destabilising forces. But there was an underlying distrust in Great Britain of becoming entangled in Continental Affairs. Further more there was a feeling that British National interests were not being threatened meaning intervention was not necessary. However France and Russia did not agree. One can see the importance of conservative order coming to the fore at key moments such as this and influencing the nature of reaction and the balance of power.

The French secured the Tsar’s backing for a Congress before any action was taken and in this manner Metternich was coerced to participate. Importantly Britain and France only sent observers to this Congress. This meant it was effectively a forum that made possible Austro-Russian reconciliation. Metternich manipulated the Troppau and Laibach Conferences brilliantly. He had not wanted the Concerts to dominate the policy of Austria towards internal and external change to countries. He feared that in individual cases a powerful state like Russia would dominate the policy of Austria. The Troppau Doctrine was established by the Congress of that name. It stated that Allied Governments would:

“Refuse recognition of changes brought about by illegal methods (taking measures to rectify these changes) first by friendly representations, then by measures of coercion, if the employment of such coercion is indispensable.”
This was a general doctrine that could be applied with the resolution of the Quadruple Alliance. Metternich took advantage of this policy cleverly. Firstly he had accepted it against his known-wishes. Great Britain refused to agree to the doctrine as it was believed it granted far too much power to the Alliance. Metternich made his concession clear. But then once he accepted Capodistria’s proposal stating that the Naples affair was an Alliance question he began undermining the idea of a Constitution for Naples. Metternich was shifting his foreign policy. He had always been committed to containing Russian power as had Castlereagh. But now there was a growing gap with Great Britain. Metternich was now trying to use Tsar Alexander to aid him in his conservative cause in Europe. By emphasising the danger of liberalism to order he sought to gain an important ally and defend the Habsburg Empire’s interests. Once more one can see the balance of power meaning the maintenance of a political climate that is beneficial to one’s nation. In Austria’s case this meant containing national forces and liberalism which were potentially destabilising for its multi-ethnic Empire. The revolts in Italy were put down by Austrian military force (Battle of Rieti on 7th March 1821 saw General Pepe of Naples defeated by the Austrians. By 23rd of March the Revolution had collapsed without any more serious resistance. Turin was occupied by the Austrians by the 10th April 1821 ending the Piedmontese Revolt). This was the external military interference with internal politics to ensure the maintenance of an order beneficial to certain powerful states.

Now we can see the beginning of an Austro-Russian axis. But as yet Britain had not stopped being a vociferous Austrian backer. It did after all support Austrian military action in Italy. France on the other hand although hostile to Austria was obviously willing to agree with the principle of intervention with the Spanish question still open. More problems arose with the 1821 Greek Rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. The Russians sought intervention but did not wish to participate in a Congress on the issue. This made Metternich’s attempt to secure a Congress of the members of the Quadruple Alliance in Hanover a failure. Metternich and Castlereagh both perceived possible war to be potentially destabilising for the established balance of power. This meant they sought together to convince the Tsar of the logic of their policy. Metternich emphasised conservative solidarity and the unity of their alliance whilst Castlereagh emphasised the practical dangers of a Russo-Turkish war. The French under Villele felt war could undermine conservatism in Europe. Ultimately decisions were put off until the 1822 Verona Congress. One can see a combination of maintaining the established order, a desire to alter that order and the reaction to a specific dilemma all interacted prior to this Congress. These were the underlying conflicts throughout this period within and outside of the congresses. The idea of maintaining a balance of power did not supersede these. The results of these factors interacting established the manner in which balance of power developed.

The Vienna/Verona Conference saw a Russo-French alliance which undermined Metternich, who, by advocated the maintenance of a conservative order by force in Italy was effectively forced Austria to allow French involvement in Spain. France invaded with Russian backing without Austrian approval. Chateaubriand stated that:

“Our France’s true policy is the Russian policy, by which we counterbalance two declared enemies, Austria and England”.
Prussia, Britain and Austria all objected to the action but were unable to hold France and Russia in check. Canning the new foreign minister declared post 1823 it was “every nation for itself”. Although this reflects a shift in balance of power in that the 1815 settlement order was being undermined it misrepresents the reality of 1815-23 which saw nations continue to act as usually in a relatively self-interested fashion.

1824 saw a Congress on Alexander I’s 3 main proposals on the Greek situation. But it was not the Congresses which decided the results of this situation. Rather it was Canning ultimately backing the new Tsar Nicholas I who significantly faced an attempted coup. Nicholas was not particularly interested in uniting the Orthodox peoples. He sought to act against the 1815 settlement in favour of Russian power. The 1825 Treaty of London saw a Triple Alliance established between Russia, Britain and France against Turkey. By 1829 Turkey had been defeated (1827 Naval Battle of Navarino saw Turko-Egyptian fleet defeated by the triple alliance. 1829 saw the fall of Adrianople.) and the Peace of Adrianople was signed. It saw the creation of an independent Greek monarchy. This marked the disintegration of the Quadruple Alliance. Russia had basically enforced its will irrespective of its being supported by all members of the alliance. In a sense this is the culmination of the shifting axis within the alliance. There was a Russo-Austrian-Prussian conservative axis after the early 1820s but it was susceptible to change in specific circumstances. One sees the maintenance of the Vienna Settlement as not being primary rather one sees the shifting nature of the balance of power due to the interaction of national interests.

The Belgium question of 1830-3 was an internal revolution of international proportions. The United Netherlands had been seen to be an essential part of the defensive ring of states around France. The Revolt in Belgium disintegrated that state and created two. King William I’s policies had been significant in causing the rift within the state as was its somewhat dubious religious and linguistic integrity. He asked for international help. But France had just suffered a revolution and had its armies tied up in Algeria and Greece. Metternich although fearful of the potential consequences of a successful revolution felt William I’s cause was already lost. Prussia stayed neutral. The Tsar was the only belligerent figure but he required international backing to act in Belgium. Thus the response of the great powers was moderate and restrained. There was a London Conference and 24 Articles were drawn up. Basically there was successful French intervention by 1833 with British support. Prussia, Austria and Russia only really desired a settlement and even if it slightly favoured France and allowed French military intervention they were not too concerned. What this represents is the fragmentation of power by this stage and an increasing interest in events which directly affects ones politics and the shifting balance of power. The Belgian question saw Restoration Europe act very conservatively in a liberal way! Independence was allowed without serious international division. The balance of power can be seen to have continued being less prominently important. The question of Belgium was settled with national interests or lack thereof in mind.

One can begin to see the difficulty and complexity in the changing international relations in Europe from 1799 to 1856. 1848 saw the conservative alliance alive and well when Russia intervened in Austria to help suppress the 1848 revolution there. Yet the Crimean war saw a further shift in the balance of power. It saw Russia’s expansionary policy at the expense of the Ottoman Empire be opposed by Britain, France, Sweden, Piedmont and ultimately even Austria with their Triple Alliance. This meant the defeat of Russia and its reputation established by 1812-15 as a potentially dominant power undermined. It also ended the Russo-Austrian alliance and transformed Russia into a revisionist power with the perceived harsh Treaty of Paris in 1856 (for example Moldova was ceded). Yet although at first sight this isolation of Russia and combination of powers against it might be seen as surprising, taking into consideration what we have already discussed it appears more understandable.

Conclusion

The 1815 Vienna Settlement saw the balance of power of the time confirmed. It facilitated British economic freedom around the world and established a physically restricted France. Britain which was primarily an economic power saw its national product rise fourteenfold over the 19th Century whilst real wages rose by 15-20% between 1815 and 1850 . It military power was slight compared to this. It was naturally disinclined to intervene on the continent. The settlement was in Britain’s interests. It was also in Austria’s interests as it was a conservative settlement. Metternich who led Austria until 1848 had seen legitimacy as the key to maintaining the Restoration Order. This idea of legitimacy was linked to government and source of its power. For Metternich the idea of tradition and natural power was vitally important. This question kept appearing throughout the period. What was the source of legitimacy: the people, history or God? This factor influenced the internal politics of countries. It can be linked to the rise of liberalism and an increasingly wealthy middle-class. The issue of how states should adapt to this and the industrial phenomenon was a deeply significant diversionary force for states which helped facilitate a time which saw far less war than the preceding 25 years. But it also meant Austria was unwilling to allow any of the Italian states to have a constitution until after 1848 with Piedmont. Yet the 1815 settlement restricted Russian Expansionary urges and limited French influence. Furthermore it artificially bolstered Austrian power. The period from 1815 to 1856 sees these key themes come to the foreground. The Balance of Power when considering all this appears rouse. It was important in the minds of contemporaries. But as a concept it is vague. A balance does not prevent conflict within that setting. For a balance in a meaningful sense means one power not dominating and power being distributed between several states. Yet rarely can it be static. The concerts themselves show the shifting alliances and the dominance of different groups as does the way individual problems are dealt with. Further one must appreciate that the concerts cannot be investigated alone. In fact they only have meaning when taken in a wider context. Thus when looking at the significance of the balance of power in the relations of the great powers until the end of the Crimean War one must emphasis its lack of possessing a dominant force. For even when it is argued that a certain action must be taken, for example, Austria with Russia over Italy in the late 1810s it is made not to ensure a balance of power but the a particular country’s national interest. These interests when taken as a whole throughout Europe can establish a balance but that was not their intention and this balance was never static.

Bibliography:
  • Anderson, M S: The Rise of Modern Diplomacy
  • Craig, G A/ George, A L: Force and Statecraft
  • Kennedy, P: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
  • Kissinger, H: Diplomacy
  • Herder, H: Italy in the Age of the Risorgimento
  • Mosse, W E: The Rise and Fall of the Crimean System
  • Namier, L: Vanished Supremacies
  • Reinerman, A J: Metternich, Alexander I and the Russian Challenge in Italy
  • Schroeder, P: The Transformation of European Politics
  • Sheehan: History and Theory
  • Sked, A: Europe’s Balance of Power
  • Woolf, S: A History of Italy