Week 1: European Security and Nationalism as an Instrument for
Nation Building
After defeating Napoleonic France, the conservative monarchies of
Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia established a collective security
system at the Congress of Vienna (1814–15) that helped prevent major
interstate wars in Europe for fifty years. Domestically, they sought to
restore order and limit the spread of social, economic, and democratic
reforms that had their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic
revolutions of the late 18th century. Outside Europe, the European
Congress system of diplomatic conferences helped ensure that the major
European powers, as they sought to expand and protect their spheres of
influence—as in the Ottoman Empire—did not allow conflicts between
them to spiral out of control.
As you learned during the last week of the Early Modern History
course, the rise of new political ideologies such as socialism, liberalism
and nationalism proved difficult to suppress. In 1848, this resulted in
liberal and nationalist revolutions in several European countries, which
were brutally suppressed by the ruling conservative elites. In order to curb
popular discontent, reactionary and moderate forces then began to use
this same nationalism as a unifying political instrument. This became
visible not only in the unification of Italy and Germany, but also in the
modernization of Tsarist Russia.
Lecture: From the depths of the nineteenth century
Research question: What can we learn today from the durability of
international orders?
- Exporting violence to other parts of the world cannot go hand in
hand with world peace
- Systems are as durable as the people who believe in them; if one no
longer believes, the system collapses (for example, the telegraph)
The international relations that we know today were, according to Jurgen
Osterhammel (Transformation, 2015) was born in the nineteenth century.
This became possible due to the outbreak of the First, Second and Cold
Wars, where political patterns are determined by diplomatic interests and
no longer revolve around dynastic interests. Not only historians see it this
way, but also politicians like Henry Kissinger, who in his dissertation (A
World Restored) argues that the nineteenth century was a period of
diplomatic simplicity. The associated international system can also be
defined as the rules that shape international relations and the practices by
which these relations are shaped (Schroeder,The Transformation of
European Politics 1763-1848). It is important to note, however, that these
do not have a fixed structure, but change throughout the nineteenth
century.
In 1813, Europe was atground zero, in which the continent was
ruined by the twenty years of warfare. Amsterdam considered itself the
world centre, with, among other things, the world map in Paleis de Dam;
however, this position changed with the introduction of Napoleon's
continental system. With this introduction, trade with England had to be
1
,limited, which limited Amsterdam by the associated trade restrictions,
causing the number of inhabitants to decrease. A new international
system had to provide a solution for this, among other things by merging
Holland and Belgium; this created greater political power vis-à-vis France,
which guaranteed peace. The Order of 1815 established other
foundations, including the 'legitimate' royal power, the defences around
France, 'reasonable' (in order to prevent a possible outbreak of revolution)
reparations and colonial exchange, with which colonies were 'returned' to
the original states. In addition, there were various diplomatic foundations,
including the Final Act of Vienna (9 June 1815; also known as the
‘founding act of an informal community of states’, Gherbas), the Second
Treaty of Paris (November 1815; also known as the ‘persistent effort in
peacetime’, with which states repeatedly committed themselves to peace
through multilateral consultation, De Graaf), the Holy Alliance (26
September 1815; as a spiritual interpretation of the new order in Europe),
the ‘formalisation’ of diplomacy (with a mainly male interpretation,
despite the major role of women with their political salons in previous
centuries) and the discussion about the slave trade, Jewish rights, the
Rhine (with the promotion of trade), piracy, balance of power, collective
security and moderation during the Congress of Vienna (1815). However,
this system was strongly hierarchical: at the top were the great powers
(Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia), followed by the ‘middle
powers’, which however did not retain any ‘real’ power, (Netherlands,
Spain, Portugal, Sardinia), ending with the small powers (Hanseatic cities
and Italian states). States outside Europe were seen as uncivilised and
were excluded, including the Ottoman Empire.
Fears within Europe included fear of war, revolutions, terror (with
chaos,regicideand expropriation) and hegemony based on Napoleon. The
real chaos, however, arose on April 10, 1815 with the volcanic eruption in
Indonesia. This resulted in enormous ash clouds and unleashed
Romanticism ('nature as overwhelming force'), with literature
asFrankenstein in Wuthering Heights. Furthermore, in 1820 revolutions
broke out due to discontent among the ‘normal’ population, first in Spain,
Portugal, Naples and Greece. In addition, various ‘revolutionary’ actions
took place: Duc de Berry, the cousin of the French king, was murdered
and the Cato Street Conspiracy, the plan to murder all ministers, arose in
England. These revolutionaries fought for a constitution, civil liberties,
political positions, nationalism and an international system. This led to the
coming together of major powers to put an end to the revolutions,
including in the Congresses of Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821) and Verona
(1822). However, Greece was an exception to these oppressions: instead
of a revolution, they called their ‘outburst’ a war against the Muslims from
the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks therefore wanted European intervention,
in which President Mavrokordatos promised Great Britain to remain
independent. At the London Conference (1827) it was decided to establish
a naval fleet to blockade the Ottomans. It was supposed to remain a
peaceful initiative, but despite promises this was not carried out. The
consequences of these revolutions were coordination of agreements,
2
,controlled change, cooperation through competition and consequences for
excluded powers.
The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, however, did not agree with the
concluded treaties: there was no representation of the Ottoman Empire at
the Congress of Aachen (1819), despite which the European powers
wanted to determine the affairs of excluded states. John Quincey Adams
therefore states that “[we] not only [need information] of their acts, but of
their intentions – not only of their final decisions, but of the propositions of
each of their members.” This gives rise to criticism of exclusion, fear of
interference, opposition, including through the Monroe Doctrine (1823).
This doctrine established that the European Congress system could no
longer have any influence on the West – conversely, America was not
allowed to interfere with European diplomacy. Nevertheless, the outside
world did have influence within European diplomacy, including through
the protests against piracy. Vice Admiral William Sidney Smith founded his
own order of knights, with which he tried to influence the European
powers by means of a ‘crusade’ to get involved in the fight against piracy
(also: ‘crusade, cleanse and civilise’). This did indeed have an effect:
Great Britain and the Netherlands bombarded Algiers, in order to force
them to abolish Christian slavery. France then conquered Algiers in June
1830 to provide ‘international peace’ within Europe, which was the
beginning of the 100-year French imperialism in Algiers. However, there
were also voices for change, including Jules de Polignac. Polignac wanted
‘a different order of ideas’ outside Europe (in other words: rules drawn up
on the continent do not count outside Europe), which led to several
Conferences, including on Algiers, with which the conquest was justified
and the urge to conquer was directed towards non-European areas. Also,
several revolutions arose in 1830, among others in Belgium (with the
Belgian Revolt), France (with the deposition of the king) and Germany
(with the criticism of congress systems). Thus, the ghost of the French
Revolution seemed to be back, which meant the end of the congress
system.
Despite Eric Hobsbawm's assertion (Age of Revolution) that “the
revolutions of 1830 destroyed [the Congress System] utterly, for they
affected not merely small states but a great power itself, France,” this did
not mean the end of the Congress system. Instead, there was more
cohesion among civilian diplomats, conferences of professionals, and the
direct link with imperialism, through the confederation of status and
power. John Darwin also speaks of a “supercharged Europe.” However,
imperialism did change, among other things through more territorial
control, with settlement colonies being established where rulers could
send any troublemakers, in order to maintain European peace. There were
also changes in the areas of free trade and exploitation and taxation (with
the introduction of the Cultivation System in 1830). Thus, 1830 is not the
‘end’ of international relations, as can be seen from the Crimean War
(1853-1856), which repeatedly threatened European peace, the ‘Eastern
Question’ (the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, where a potential
continental war could be fatal) and the Congress of Paris (1856). Within
this Congress it was determined that the Ottoman Empire would remain a
3
, great power, in order to solve the ‘Eastern Question’, and that the law of
war at sea would be coordinated by means of the Danube Commission.
Maartje Abbenhuis argues that some historians accept the ‘disintegration’
of Congresses, because they cannot see that the Congress system is
flexible.
Wars such as the Italian and German unification wars were very
short-lived; however, this had to do with the colonial consequences, with
which Germany wanted to capture some colonies. A fatal European war
was prevented by the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), which meant that
major powers did not have to fight to obtain colonies. Since there was
little space left in Africa, it can be said that imperialism was becoming
limited, causing European major powers to fight against each other. This
can also be called a ‘Social Darwinist’ idea, which states that imperialism
is a last attempt to prevent ‘extinction’. Nationalism was also seen as a
mass phenomenon, with which imperialism was the basis and propaganda
could be spread quickly. This also had to do with the improvement of
communication techniques and dealing with crises (see, for example, the
assassination of President Lincoln in 1865 and Tsar Alexander II in 1881,
which were known after 13 days and 12 hours respectively). During the
war, however, telegraph cables were cut, which made the great powers
afraid of cooperation, causing each state to lay their own cables (see for
example the British ‘all-red routes’). Colonial issues, European tensions
and the Morocco crisis reinforced this division; however, a compromise
was seen as weakness and thus a war mood arose in the press. If Europe
is divided into two blocks (Triple Alliance versus Triple Entente), this war
mood becomes definitive.
Workshop April 24
The European Concert was a collaboration between European powers,
with emphasis on order (both military, international and national; the
latter as anti-revolutionary) in order to restore the pre-war chaos,
imperialist ideologies and the establishment of a (collective) European
security system (to prevent another ‘Napoleonic’ revolution, major war or
terror). It can also be defined as a European playing field of major powers.
This collaboration was organized in the Quadruple Alliance (United
Kingdom, Russia, Austria and Prussia; in order of importance), also called
the Holy Alliance (consisting of Russia, Austria and Prussia); eventually
this became the Pentarchy (with France).
The European Concert has various committees, with ambassadorial
and ministerial conferences and expert groups; these committees formed
laws (including international public law), norms and values, which every
European state had to adhere to. The imperialist ideology was
diametrically opposed to international public law; this can be seen in the
case of the Ottoman Empire (which fell outside Europe!) versus Russia,
where Russia wanted to take over a large part of the Empire, but
nevertheless did not do so. In the end it was decided to keep the Ottoman
Empire ‘weak’, instead of dividing it up. Only with the consent of all major
powers could the European borders be extended, whereby the ‘right of
4
Nation Building
After defeating Napoleonic France, the conservative monarchies of
Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia established a collective security
system at the Congress of Vienna (1814–15) that helped prevent major
interstate wars in Europe for fifty years. Domestically, they sought to
restore order and limit the spread of social, economic, and democratic
reforms that had their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic
revolutions of the late 18th century. Outside Europe, the European
Congress system of diplomatic conferences helped ensure that the major
European powers, as they sought to expand and protect their spheres of
influence—as in the Ottoman Empire—did not allow conflicts between
them to spiral out of control.
As you learned during the last week of the Early Modern History
course, the rise of new political ideologies such as socialism, liberalism
and nationalism proved difficult to suppress. In 1848, this resulted in
liberal and nationalist revolutions in several European countries, which
were brutally suppressed by the ruling conservative elites. In order to curb
popular discontent, reactionary and moderate forces then began to use
this same nationalism as a unifying political instrument. This became
visible not only in the unification of Italy and Germany, but also in the
modernization of Tsarist Russia.
Lecture: From the depths of the nineteenth century
Research question: What can we learn today from the durability of
international orders?
- Exporting violence to other parts of the world cannot go hand in
hand with world peace
- Systems are as durable as the people who believe in them; if one no
longer believes, the system collapses (for example, the telegraph)
The international relations that we know today were, according to Jurgen
Osterhammel (Transformation, 2015) was born in the nineteenth century.
This became possible due to the outbreak of the First, Second and Cold
Wars, where political patterns are determined by diplomatic interests and
no longer revolve around dynastic interests. Not only historians see it this
way, but also politicians like Henry Kissinger, who in his dissertation (A
World Restored) argues that the nineteenth century was a period of
diplomatic simplicity. The associated international system can also be
defined as the rules that shape international relations and the practices by
which these relations are shaped (Schroeder,The Transformation of
European Politics 1763-1848). It is important to note, however, that these
do not have a fixed structure, but change throughout the nineteenth
century.
In 1813, Europe was atground zero, in which the continent was
ruined by the twenty years of warfare. Amsterdam considered itself the
world centre, with, among other things, the world map in Paleis de Dam;
however, this position changed with the introduction of Napoleon's
continental system. With this introduction, trade with England had to be
1
,limited, which limited Amsterdam by the associated trade restrictions,
causing the number of inhabitants to decrease. A new international
system had to provide a solution for this, among other things by merging
Holland and Belgium; this created greater political power vis-à-vis France,
which guaranteed peace. The Order of 1815 established other
foundations, including the 'legitimate' royal power, the defences around
France, 'reasonable' (in order to prevent a possible outbreak of revolution)
reparations and colonial exchange, with which colonies were 'returned' to
the original states. In addition, there were various diplomatic foundations,
including the Final Act of Vienna (9 June 1815; also known as the
‘founding act of an informal community of states’, Gherbas), the Second
Treaty of Paris (November 1815; also known as the ‘persistent effort in
peacetime’, with which states repeatedly committed themselves to peace
through multilateral consultation, De Graaf), the Holy Alliance (26
September 1815; as a spiritual interpretation of the new order in Europe),
the ‘formalisation’ of diplomacy (with a mainly male interpretation,
despite the major role of women with their political salons in previous
centuries) and the discussion about the slave trade, Jewish rights, the
Rhine (with the promotion of trade), piracy, balance of power, collective
security and moderation during the Congress of Vienna (1815). However,
this system was strongly hierarchical: at the top were the great powers
(Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia), followed by the ‘middle
powers’, which however did not retain any ‘real’ power, (Netherlands,
Spain, Portugal, Sardinia), ending with the small powers (Hanseatic cities
and Italian states). States outside Europe were seen as uncivilised and
were excluded, including the Ottoman Empire.
Fears within Europe included fear of war, revolutions, terror (with
chaos,regicideand expropriation) and hegemony based on Napoleon. The
real chaos, however, arose on April 10, 1815 with the volcanic eruption in
Indonesia. This resulted in enormous ash clouds and unleashed
Romanticism ('nature as overwhelming force'), with literature
asFrankenstein in Wuthering Heights. Furthermore, in 1820 revolutions
broke out due to discontent among the ‘normal’ population, first in Spain,
Portugal, Naples and Greece. In addition, various ‘revolutionary’ actions
took place: Duc de Berry, the cousin of the French king, was murdered
and the Cato Street Conspiracy, the plan to murder all ministers, arose in
England. These revolutionaries fought for a constitution, civil liberties,
political positions, nationalism and an international system. This led to the
coming together of major powers to put an end to the revolutions,
including in the Congresses of Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821) and Verona
(1822). However, Greece was an exception to these oppressions: instead
of a revolution, they called their ‘outburst’ a war against the Muslims from
the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks therefore wanted European intervention,
in which President Mavrokordatos promised Great Britain to remain
independent. At the London Conference (1827) it was decided to establish
a naval fleet to blockade the Ottomans. It was supposed to remain a
peaceful initiative, but despite promises this was not carried out. The
consequences of these revolutions were coordination of agreements,
2
,controlled change, cooperation through competition and consequences for
excluded powers.
The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, however, did not agree with the
concluded treaties: there was no representation of the Ottoman Empire at
the Congress of Aachen (1819), despite which the European powers
wanted to determine the affairs of excluded states. John Quincey Adams
therefore states that “[we] not only [need information] of their acts, but of
their intentions – not only of their final decisions, but of the propositions of
each of their members.” This gives rise to criticism of exclusion, fear of
interference, opposition, including through the Monroe Doctrine (1823).
This doctrine established that the European Congress system could no
longer have any influence on the West – conversely, America was not
allowed to interfere with European diplomacy. Nevertheless, the outside
world did have influence within European diplomacy, including through
the protests against piracy. Vice Admiral William Sidney Smith founded his
own order of knights, with which he tried to influence the European
powers by means of a ‘crusade’ to get involved in the fight against piracy
(also: ‘crusade, cleanse and civilise’). This did indeed have an effect:
Great Britain and the Netherlands bombarded Algiers, in order to force
them to abolish Christian slavery. France then conquered Algiers in June
1830 to provide ‘international peace’ within Europe, which was the
beginning of the 100-year French imperialism in Algiers. However, there
were also voices for change, including Jules de Polignac. Polignac wanted
‘a different order of ideas’ outside Europe (in other words: rules drawn up
on the continent do not count outside Europe), which led to several
Conferences, including on Algiers, with which the conquest was justified
and the urge to conquer was directed towards non-European areas. Also,
several revolutions arose in 1830, among others in Belgium (with the
Belgian Revolt), France (with the deposition of the king) and Germany
(with the criticism of congress systems). Thus, the ghost of the French
Revolution seemed to be back, which meant the end of the congress
system.
Despite Eric Hobsbawm's assertion (Age of Revolution) that “the
revolutions of 1830 destroyed [the Congress System] utterly, for they
affected not merely small states but a great power itself, France,” this did
not mean the end of the Congress system. Instead, there was more
cohesion among civilian diplomats, conferences of professionals, and the
direct link with imperialism, through the confederation of status and
power. John Darwin also speaks of a “supercharged Europe.” However,
imperialism did change, among other things through more territorial
control, with settlement colonies being established where rulers could
send any troublemakers, in order to maintain European peace. There were
also changes in the areas of free trade and exploitation and taxation (with
the introduction of the Cultivation System in 1830). Thus, 1830 is not the
‘end’ of international relations, as can be seen from the Crimean War
(1853-1856), which repeatedly threatened European peace, the ‘Eastern
Question’ (the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, where a potential
continental war could be fatal) and the Congress of Paris (1856). Within
this Congress it was determined that the Ottoman Empire would remain a
3
, great power, in order to solve the ‘Eastern Question’, and that the law of
war at sea would be coordinated by means of the Danube Commission.
Maartje Abbenhuis argues that some historians accept the ‘disintegration’
of Congresses, because they cannot see that the Congress system is
flexible.
Wars such as the Italian and German unification wars were very
short-lived; however, this had to do with the colonial consequences, with
which Germany wanted to capture some colonies. A fatal European war
was prevented by the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), which meant that
major powers did not have to fight to obtain colonies. Since there was
little space left in Africa, it can be said that imperialism was becoming
limited, causing European major powers to fight against each other. This
can also be called a ‘Social Darwinist’ idea, which states that imperialism
is a last attempt to prevent ‘extinction’. Nationalism was also seen as a
mass phenomenon, with which imperialism was the basis and propaganda
could be spread quickly. This also had to do with the improvement of
communication techniques and dealing with crises (see, for example, the
assassination of President Lincoln in 1865 and Tsar Alexander II in 1881,
which were known after 13 days and 12 hours respectively). During the
war, however, telegraph cables were cut, which made the great powers
afraid of cooperation, causing each state to lay their own cables (see for
example the British ‘all-red routes’). Colonial issues, European tensions
and the Morocco crisis reinforced this division; however, a compromise
was seen as weakness and thus a war mood arose in the press. If Europe
is divided into two blocks (Triple Alliance versus Triple Entente), this war
mood becomes definitive.
Workshop April 24
The European Concert was a collaboration between European powers,
with emphasis on order (both military, international and national; the
latter as anti-revolutionary) in order to restore the pre-war chaos,
imperialist ideologies and the establishment of a (collective) European
security system (to prevent another ‘Napoleonic’ revolution, major war or
terror). It can also be defined as a European playing field of major powers.
This collaboration was organized in the Quadruple Alliance (United
Kingdom, Russia, Austria and Prussia; in order of importance), also called
the Holy Alliance (consisting of Russia, Austria and Prussia); eventually
this became the Pentarchy (with France).
The European Concert has various committees, with ambassadorial
and ministerial conferences and expert groups; these committees formed
laws (including international public law), norms and values, which every
European state had to adhere to. The imperialist ideology was
diametrically opposed to international public law; this can be seen in the
case of the Ottoman Empire (which fell outside Europe!) versus Russia,
where Russia wanted to take over a large part of the Empire, but
nevertheless did not do so. In the end it was decided to keep the Ottoman
Empire ‘weak’, instead of dividing it up. Only with the consent of all major
powers could the European borders be extended, whereby the ‘right of
4
