Something that I found particularly interesting in last night’s reading was merely a side note in a description of Metternich’s foreign policy.
The Austrian foreign minister Klemens von Metternich, perhaps the most influential conservative diplomat of the early nineteenth century, called revolution a “sickness,” “plague,” and “cancer,” and with his allies set out to inoculate Europe against any further outbreaks. As Metternch and others saw it, revolution produced war. Peace, therefore, rested on avoiding political turmoil and keeping a firm grip on domestic affairs in all the countries of Europe.
Of course, Metternich’s theory is discussed and even questioned in detail later on. On one hand, it seems that his attempts to broker peace, most notably the Congress of Vienna, were not only very significant, but also, arguably, successful. Putting aside the discussion about what constitutes peace and whether to take into account the minor and not-so-minor wars over the next century, it is undeniable that the Congress helped to prevent a major European war until 1914.
However, what I find more interesting is an assumption that Coffin merely glosses over – that Metternich’s main goal was peace, and avoiding war at all cost, using harsh repressive tactics along the way. That is a completely understandable aim, considering the extent of the turmoil of the earlier, revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, but it still seems worth mentioning more than as something to be taken for granted. Perhaps I’m simply remembering Napoleon’s narcissistic obsession with conquest and war in order to boost his image, but this desire for peace above all else feels unfamiliar. It seems to me a vast change from the mercantilists and their dependence on war and expansion, as well as seemingly a majority of the rulers we’ve read of who would never have dreamed of sacrificing so much for and putting so much energy into protecting peace. Perhaps it’s unintentional on Coffin’s part, but something about the phrasing drew my attention. I don’t know whether this emphasis on peace is simply a reaction to the tumultuous time immediately beforehand and part of an attempt to rebuild Europe, or whether the function of war in the eyes of monarchs has changed and at this time the possible unifying effect and gains of territory and wealth are not worth the damage done, but watching how these ideas play out in the period to come could be interesting.
If anyone else noticed a similar trend, wants to point out an obvious gap in my logic or give explanations for or their opinions on the things I’ve wondered about in this post, please comment or reply in your blog.
The Austrian foreign minister Klemens von Metternich, perhaps the most influential conservative diplomat of the early nineteenth century, called revolution a “sickness,” “plague,” and “cancer,” and with his allies set out to inoculate Europe against any further outbreaks. As Metternch and others saw it, revolution produced war. Peace, therefore, rested on avoiding political turmoil and keeping a firm grip on domestic affairs in all the countries of Europe.
Of course, Metternich’s theory is discussed and even questioned in detail later on. On one hand, it seems that his attempts to broker peace, most notably the Congress of Vienna, were not only very significant, but also, arguably, successful. Putting aside the discussion about what constitutes peace and whether to take into account the minor and not-so-minor wars over the next century, it is undeniable that the Congress helped to prevent a major European war until 1914.
However, what I find more interesting is an assumption that Coffin merely glosses over – that Metternich’s main goal was peace, and avoiding war at all cost, using harsh repressive tactics along the way. That is a completely understandable aim, considering the extent of the turmoil of the earlier, revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, but it still seems worth mentioning more than as something to be taken for granted. Perhaps I’m simply remembering Napoleon’s narcissistic obsession with conquest and war in order to boost his image, but this desire for peace above all else feels unfamiliar. It seems to me a vast change from the mercantilists and their dependence on war and expansion, as well as seemingly a majority of the rulers we’ve read of who would never have dreamed of sacrificing so much for and putting so much energy into protecting peace. Perhaps it’s unintentional on Coffin’s part, but something about the phrasing drew my attention. I don’t know whether this emphasis on peace is simply a reaction to the tumultuous time immediately beforehand and part of an attempt to rebuild Europe, or whether the function of war in the eyes of monarchs has changed and at this time the possible unifying effect and gains of territory and wealth are not worth the damage done, but watching how these ideas play out in the period to come could be interesting.
If anyone else noticed a similar trend, wants to point out an obvious gap in my logic or give explanations for or their opinions on the things I’ve wondered about in this post, please comment or reply in your blog.
Replied to here
ReplyDelete