What do you think?
Rate this book
Ritos de paz: a queda de Napoleão e o Congresso de Viena
Ritos de paz resgata a história do Congresso de Viena com base em uma vasta coleção de fontes em seis línguas, que incluem não apenas documentos oficiais, cartas pessoais, diários e relatos originais, como também os relatórios de espiões e informantes da polícia. Adam Zamoyski atravessa a fina camada da cortesia para revelar que a nova Europa foi forjada por homens que não passavam de escravos do medo, da ambição e da luxúria, em meio a uma atmosfera de depravação moral na qual as províncias e as almas que as habitavam foram trocadas com a mesma prontidão que os favores sexuais. "Ao escrever este livro, me dispus a dar a descrição mais completa possível das negociações que levaram ao estabelecimento da paz, na esperança que a sucessão dos fatos possa esclarecer como isso foi alcançado. Tentei apresentar as esperanças e os temores de cada um dos lados da forma mais imparcial - e ainda assim mais simpática - possível, na convicção de que não somos jogadores nem ‘bons’ nem ‘maus’, apenas assustados", afirma Zamoyski. O autor mostra como o resultado obtido no Congresso de Viena, em 1815, não apenas estabeleceu os alicerces para o mundo europeu que conhecemos, mas instituiu a ordem social e o sistema de segurança que representam a raiz de muitos problemas que atualmente assolam o mundo. Apesar de os momentos definitivos terem tido lugar em Viena e de os papéis principais incluírem o czar russo Alexandre I, o chanceler austríaco Metternich, o Duque de Wellington, o mestre da diplomacia francês Talleyrand, além do próprio Napoleão, a visão de que o Congresso representou a reunião de homens de estado buscando a reordenação do continente em um salão elegante é completamente falsa. Muitas das questões cruciais foram na verdade decididas no campo de batalha ou em esquálidos casebres de beira de estrada em meio aos caprichos da guerra. Mesmo a conduta adotada em Viena não foi assim tão decorosa como costuma ser representada.
614 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
90 people are currently reading
1744 people want to read
About the author
Adam Zamoyski
27 books309 followersA historian and a member of the ancient Zamoyski family of Polish nobility. Born in New York City and raised in England. He is Chairman of the Board of the Princes Czartoryski Foundation. On June 16, 2001, in London, England, he married the artist Emma Sergeant.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
November 21, 2021
“If there is much to criticize in the work of the peacemakers of 1815, it had to be admitted that they did face a formidable task, one that defied any ideal solution. Just because certain arrangements they made turned out to have evil consequences, it does not follow that the opposite course would have yielded more benign results. And they did achieve their principle aim, which was to bring about peace after a quarter century of war. The [Congress of Vienna] does stand as a watershed in the affairs of the world, if only by virtue of what was said and discussed. Even by its stumbling progress, it suggested a different approach to the conduct of international relations, and it initiated a series of processes which were to become part of the furniture of world affairs…”
- Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna
The Treaty of Paris in 1814 put an end – it seemed at the time – to the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled to Elba, the Bourbon monarchy was restored in France, and peace was at hand.
Of course, it was not going to be nearly so simple. Napoleon had been rampaging around Europe for more than a decade, adding territory to his own country, creating entirely new entities, and installing family members in various thrones. There was, to put it mildly, a lot of unwinding to do.
To tackle this issue, the major powers of Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria called an international congress in Vienna to reset the game board that Napoleon had so thoroughly upended. In other words, the Congress of Vienna was a massive redistricting effort, a sovereign gerrymandering in which national lines were redrawn and people – “souls” – traded between rulers, all in an effort to create lasting stability through defensible frontiers and a balancing of powers.
As a historical subject, the Congress of Vienna is a bit of a tough sell for the modern reader, especially one who is only casually interested in the Napoleonic Era. The day-to-day business of mapmaking is not inherently exciting, many of the polities discussed no longer exist in the same form or name, and the complexity is enormous. To take one example, before Napoleon created the Confederation of the Rhine, present-day Germany consisted of somewhere in the neighborhood of three-hundred different political entities.
When I picked up Adam Zamoyski’s Rites of Peace, I was prepared for a slog, ready to endure rather than enjoy. As it turns out, this is anything but a slog. It is, quite to the contrary, gracefully written, cleanly presented, and far more entertaining that I could have imagined.
Rites of Peace begins in late 1812, with Napoleon having limped back home after his disastrous Russian campaign. Hotly pursued, the noose slowly tightens around his reign. Despite tremendous exertions and numerous tactical victories (though the military situation is outlined, the battles are not described), his strategic window closes shut, and he is forced to agree to terms.
From there, step by step, Zamoyski takes us along the timeline, through the Treaties of Chaumont and Paris, and onto Vienna itself, where sovereigns and statesmen converged, housing became sparse, deals were struck, and the venereal disease rates – I presume – skyrocketed.
Zamoyski is methodical in the way he structures Rites of Peace, carefully moving from one incident to the next, clearly marking each connection. I greatly appreciated how he distilled the material to its essence, focusing on the big names and higherups at the expense of lower-level diplomats. I also loved how map-tastic this was, with numerous, well-placed maps to show the ways the borders changed from the 1790s to 1815.
Having just begun reading about this time period, I have found that histories of the Napoleonic Wars sometimes feel like a private club that is not keen on accepting new members. Assumptions are made, references are not explained, and you need a great deal of foreknowledge before you can understand anything. That is not the case here. This is accessible and welcoming to newcomers. Though it is a somewhat hefty 570-pages of text, I was never lost. More importantly, I was never less than engrossed.
Part of this is that the Congress of Vienna was bonkers. It was a mind boggling combination of frat kegger and key party, fueled by a heady cocktail of nationalist ambitions, deeply-held grievances, sexual tension, and lots of booze. There were balls, plays, and feasts. People got drunk. Men traded wives. Wives traded husbands. The partner swapping became byzantine. Mountains of debt were accumulated, then defaulted upon. The Viennese police filled War and Peace-sized volumes with the salacious afterhours activities of – among other luminaries – Tsar Alexander.
Instead of turning up his nose at this aspect – as a more academically-minded historian might do – Zamoyski embraces the soap operatic elements with enthusiasm. He is helped with an indelible cast of personalities, from the self-righteous Tsar to the too-clever-by-half Talleyrand. There is a great scene in which a group of diplomats were in a room trying to hammer out a difficult agreement while Metternich, the illustrious Austrian foreign minister, sat in the corner and wrote a pouting and heartbroken love letter to his mistress. Beyond the characters, there are more than enough plot twists – including Napoleon’s escape from Elba, culminating in Waterloo – intrigues, and betrayals to hold anyone’s attention.
Admittedly, I’ve focused more on the pulse-pounding aspects of the Congress of Vienna than anything else, so I hasten to add that the history is solid. Indeed, Rites of Peace is a book that demonstrates that readability and scholarship do not have to be mutually exclusive. Zamoyski is Oxford-trained, multilingual, and has written extensively about this era. He might streamline certain things, but he does not ignore the finer points. If you are interested in learning about the fate of the Kingdom of Saxony, the borders of the Swiss Confederation, or the long-term effects of the congress, you will be satisfied.
While Rites of Peace is focused on a singular event, it helps to answer the broader question of why history is such a mess. It’s the people. The big decisions, the ones affecting millions of lives, the ones determining national destinies, were not made in the cool, dispassionate light of objectivity, but in the throws of myriad passions and emotions. The flawed men and women in Vienna were, by turns, venal, arrogant, misguided, overly-pragmatic, helplessly deluded, hungover, distracted, greedy, overbearing, under-bearing, mono-fixated, lust-blinded, shortsighted, and impractical. They were – in a word – humans. By using the participant’s humanity as the foundation, Zamoyski has constructed an entirely satisfying tale.
- Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna
The Treaty of Paris in 1814 put an end – it seemed at the time – to the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled to Elba, the Bourbon monarchy was restored in France, and peace was at hand.
Of course, it was not going to be nearly so simple. Napoleon had been rampaging around Europe for more than a decade, adding territory to his own country, creating entirely new entities, and installing family members in various thrones. There was, to put it mildly, a lot of unwinding to do.
To tackle this issue, the major powers of Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria called an international congress in Vienna to reset the game board that Napoleon had so thoroughly upended. In other words, the Congress of Vienna was a massive redistricting effort, a sovereign gerrymandering in which national lines were redrawn and people – “souls” – traded between rulers, all in an effort to create lasting stability through defensible frontiers and a balancing of powers.
As a historical subject, the Congress of Vienna is a bit of a tough sell for the modern reader, especially one who is only casually interested in the Napoleonic Era. The day-to-day business of mapmaking is not inherently exciting, many of the polities discussed no longer exist in the same form or name, and the complexity is enormous. To take one example, before Napoleon created the Confederation of the Rhine, present-day Germany consisted of somewhere in the neighborhood of three-hundred different political entities.
When I picked up Adam Zamoyski’s Rites of Peace, I was prepared for a slog, ready to endure rather than enjoy. As it turns out, this is anything but a slog. It is, quite to the contrary, gracefully written, cleanly presented, and far more entertaining that I could have imagined.
Rites of Peace begins in late 1812, with Napoleon having limped back home after his disastrous Russian campaign. Hotly pursued, the noose slowly tightens around his reign. Despite tremendous exertions and numerous tactical victories (though the military situation is outlined, the battles are not described), his strategic window closes shut, and he is forced to agree to terms.
From there, step by step, Zamoyski takes us along the timeline, through the Treaties of Chaumont and Paris, and onto Vienna itself, where sovereigns and statesmen converged, housing became sparse, deals were struck, and the venereal disease rates – I presume – skyrocketed.
Zamoyski is methodical in the way he structures Rites of Peace, carefully moving from one incident to the next, clearly marking each connection. I greatly appreciated how he distilled the material to its essence, focusing on the big names and higherups at the expense of lower-level diplomats. I also loved how map-tastic this was, with numerous, well-placed maps to show the ways the borders changed from the 1790s to 1815.
Having just begun reading about this time period, I have found that histories of the Napoleonic Wars sometimes feel like a private club that is not keen on accepting new members. Assumptions are made, references are not explained, and you need a great deal of foreknowledge before you can understand anything. That is not the case here. This is accessible and welcoming to newcomers. Though it is a somewhat hefty 570-pages of text, I was never lost. More importantly, I was never less than engrossed.
Part of this is that the Congress of Vienna was bonkers. It was a mind boggling combination of frat kegger and key party, fueled by a heady cocktail of nationalist ambitions, deeply-held grievances, sexual tension, and lots of booze. There were balls, plays, and feasts. People got drunk. Men traded wives. Wives traded husbands. The partner swapping became byzantine. Mountains of debt were accumulated, then defaulted upon. The Viennese police filled War and Peace-sized volumes with the salacious afterhours activities of – among other luminaries – Tsar Alexander.
Instead of turning up his nose at this aspect – as a more academically-minded historian might do – Zamoyski embraces the soap operatic elements with enthusiasm. He is helped with an indelible cast of personalities, from the self-righteous Tsar to the too-clever-by-half Talleyrand. There is a great scene in which a group of diplomats were in a room trying to hammer out a difficult agreement while Metternich, the illustrious Austrian foreign minister, sat in the corner and wrote a pouting and heartbroken love letter to his mistress. Beyond the characters, there are more than enough plot twists – including Napoleon’s escape from Elba, culminating in Waterloo – intrigues, and betrayals to hold anyone’s attention.
Admittedly, I’ve focused more on the pulse-pounding aspects of the Congress of Vienna than anything else, so I hasten to add that the history is solid. Indeed, Rites of Peace is a book that demonstrates that readability and scholarship do not have to be mutually exclusive. Zamoyski is Oxford-trained, multilingual, and has written extensively about this era. He might streamline certain things, but he does not ignore the finer points. If you are interested in learning about the fate of the Kingdom of Saxony, the borders of the Swiss Confederation, or the long-term effects of the congress, you will be satisfied.
While Rites of Peace is focused on a singular event, it helps to answer the broader question of why history is such a mess. It’s the people. The big decisions, the ones affecting millions of lives, the ones determining national destinies, were not made in the cool, dispassionate light of objectivity, but in the throws of myriad passions and emotions. The flawed men and women in Vienna were, by turns, venal, arrogant, misguided, overly-pragmatic, helplessly deluded, hungover, distracted, greedy, overbearing, under-bearing, mono-fixated, lust-blinded, shortsighted, and impractical. They were – in a word – humans. By using the participant’s humanity as the foundation, Zamoyski has constructed an entirely satisfying tale.
September 5, 2025
The March of Peace
This Rites of Peace starts where author Count Adam Zamoyski left off with his excellent Moscow: 1812. The Grand Armée has just been annihilated in Russia and Napoleon I, Emperor of the French is sloping back to Paris to prevent a suspected coup d’état. There was no uprising but it was a good excuse to flee the disaster of the east. Napoleon’s plan was to draft more men and continue the French domination of Europe. Two more years of fighting followed with the huge Battle of Leipzig where 560,000 soldiers fought a three day battle. The Corsican lost after a grave mistake of allowing a temporary seize fire. The end was coming.
The allies unknowing what to do with Napoleon in the wake of their victories and after nearly 20 years of fighting exiled him to the island of Elba in the Mediterranean to keep an eye on him. They then began to discuss the peace at the Congress of Vienna. Where every nation sent its king, Prince or diplomat to rebuild Europe. As Zamoyski shows it was extremely complicated and as each person was pushing for their own agenda, these aims often overlapped. The endless parties and the personality of Tsar Alexander I of Russia dominated the scene. There were also the talented and sometimes sneaky players such as Prince Klemens von Metternich the Austrian diplomat, British foreign secretary Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh and the cat with nine lives, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand. The problem was that Napoleon, sensing (rightly) that he was was not just going to be left in peace on Elba, orchestrated an incredible escape to France and so launched the hundred days, which saw the collapse of King Louis XVIII’s government, Napoleon rise back to power and the Waterloo campaign. The battle would be his last hurrah, but Europe still needed to be rebuilt and so the talks continued.
Zamoyski shows that the complications of international diplomacy in the wake of the most disruptive period in European history was tedious, farcical, crammed with endless balls and private activities. Women descended upon the Austrian capital in droves, picked up by the powerful men there. Metternich slept with so many, he lost count, Alexander ended up stealing one of Metternich’s mistresses whilst Talleyrand took both a mother and daughter to bed. Castlereagh, brought his wife (he was always faithful to her) and they were seen constantly shopping together in the fashionable areas of town, without apparently ever buying anything. His half brother however Lord Charles Stewart, British ambassador to Austria was often seen drunk in the streets, took a mistress and turned an inn into a ‘fucking shop.’
Zamoyski explains the results were mixed at the congress. Britain failed to guarantee their promises to the Poles, Italians or Greeks. The Prussians wanted to extract huge repatriations from France whilst most nations wanted to establish a league of some sort to enforce peace in Europe. These are all ideas and scenarios which would be replicated one way or another in later major wars. What dominated the conference however was the need to establish a long lasting peace. This was the priority and so in achieving no major war in Europe until the Crimean War in 1853, the congress can be considered successful. However, Poland would not be free until 1919. Italians and Greeks would have to fight wars of independence, Britain withdrew from the continent and the ultra conservative Holy Alliance was formed with Austria, Prussia and Russia. What also followed was a period of huge repression, censorship and massive police states. All governments feared further revolutions and wanted to check this. In many ways this was understandable because what Europe had just gone through. This would only be undone with the 1848 Revolutions, where Metternich finally fell from power. However, the biggest loser in all of this was the Catholic Church who lost most of its land, influence and power. The representative of the Pope was the only person not to sign the treaty.
Zamoyski is a great writer and This Rites of Peace is a must for anyone interested in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but unfortunately it is just not as good as Moscow: 1812. It is important to know how it all ended and what the victors did with their triumph. However, Zamoyski, for me just hasn’t captured the magic of some of his earlier books. Comparing this to a book of a similar topic, Margaret MacMillan’s Paris: 1919 which looks at the Treaty of Versailles, where to outcome was much more depressing, is fantastic. This shows that diplomacy can be done well, Zamoyski just hasn’t written it this way. It is still worth the read, I just don’t know if I’ll return to it.
This Rites of Peace starts where author Count Adam Zamoyski left off with his excellent Moscow: 1812. The Grand Armée has just been annihilated in Russia and Napoleon I, Emperor of the French is sloping back to Paris to prevent a suspected coup d’état. There was no uprising but it was a good excuse to flee the disaster of the east. Napoleon’s plan was to draft more men and continue the French domination of Europe. Two more years of fighting followed with the huge Battle of Leipzig where 560,000 soldiers fought a three day battle. The Corsican lost after a grave mistake of allowing a temporary seize fire. The end was coming.
The allies unknowing what to do with Napoleon in the wake of their victories and after nearly 20 years of fighting exiled him to the island of Elba in the Mediterranean to keep an eye on him. They then began to discuss the peace at the Congress of Vienna. Where every nation sent its king, Prince or diplomat to rebuild Europe. As Zamoyski shows it was extremely complicated and as each person was pushing for their own agenda, these aims often overlapped. The endless parties and the personality of Tsar Alexander I of Russia dominated the scene. There were also the talented and sometimes sneaky players such as Prince Klemens von Metternich the Austrian diplomat, British foreign secretary Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh and the cat with nine lives, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand. The problem was that Napoleon, sensing (rightly) that he was was not just going to be left in peace on Elba, orchestrated an incredible escape to France and so launched the hundred days, which saw the collapse of King Louis XVIII’s government, Napoleon rise back to power and the Waterloo campaign. The battle would be his last hurrah, but Europe still needed to be rebuilt and so the talks continued.
Zamoyski shows that the complications of international diplomacy in the wake of the most disruptive period in European history was tedious, farcical, crammed with endless balls and private activities. Women descended upon the Austrian capital in droves, picked up by the powerful men there. Metternich slept with so many, he lost count, Alexander ended up stealing one of Metternich’s mistresses whilst Talleyrand took both a mother and daughter to bed. Castlereagh, brought his wife (he was always faithful to her) and they were seen constantly shopping together in the fashionable areas of town, without apparently ever buying anything. His half brother however Lord Charles Stewart, British ambassador to Austria was often seen drunk in the streets, took a mistress and turned an inn into a ‘fucking shop.’
Zamoyski explains the results were mixed at the congress. Britain failed to guarantee their promises to the Poles, Italians or Greeks. The Prussians wanted to extract huge repatriations from France whilst most nations wanted to establish a league of some sort to enforce peace in Europe. These are all ideas and scenarios which would be replicated one way or another in later major wars. What dominated the conference however was the need to establish a long lasting peace. This was the priority and so in achieving no major war in Europe until the Crimean War in 1853, the congress can be considered successful. However, Poland would not be free until 1919. Italians and Greeks would have to fight wars of independence, Britain withdrew from the continent and the ultra conservative Holy Alliance was formed with Austria, Prussia and Russia. What also followed was a period of huge repression, censorship and massive police states. All governments feared further revolutions and wanted to check this. In many ways this was understandable because what Europe had just gone through. This would only be undone with the 1848 Revolutions, where Metternich finally fell from power. However, the biggest loser in all of this was the Catholic Church who lost most of its land, influence and power. The representative of the Pope was the only person not to sign the treaty.
Zamoyski is a great writer and This Rites of Peace is a must for anyone interested in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but unfortunately it is just not as good as Moscow: 1812. It is important to know how it all ended and what the victors did with their triumph. However, Zamoyski, for me just hasn’t captured the magic of some of his earlier books. Comparing this to a book of a similar topic, Margaret MacMillan’s Paris: 1919 which looks at the Treaty of Versailles, where to outcome was much more depressing, is fantastic. This shows that diplomacy can be done well, Zamoyski just hasn’t written it this way. It is still worth the read, I just don’t know if I’ll return to it.
August 6, 2021
As mentioned previously, this 600+-page-book of popular history (as well as the book to which it is a sequel) is (as of this writing in 2021) selling at a bargain price ($5.99) as a Kindle download. Lower prices for Kindle downloads are a thing which should be encouraged.
I don't know if everybody goes through life with inaccurate ideas based on half-understood third-hand knowledge acquired in youth, but I do. Particularly, in this case, when I was a teenager, Henry Kissinger was at the height of his fame, committing the acts of … well … maybe “war criminality” is a little strong, so let's be charitable and call it “debatable morality and legality” … from which he even now hobbles freely along among us as he approaches his centennial. At the height of his fame, Kissinger's opinions on all matters were taken seriously and reported on at great length. At that time, I read that Henry, when younger, had written an academic volume in which he vigorously championed the actions and policies of Metternich, whom Kissinger seemed to think was the architect (at the Congress of Vienna) of a “long peace” which began with the fall of Napoleon and ended with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It was strongly implied that Henry, having educated himself mightily on the stratagems that Metternich used to achieve this admirable end, was applying his considerable grey matter to being the Metternich of our age, laboring mightily to give us a long peace during which we would live happily until our collective dotage.
Sadly, the long peace never materialized. Most of us realized that Henry wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was, even if he was clever than most of us. But that disillusionment, at least in my case, did not contaminate the memory of Metternich, who still in mind was labelled “Great Architect of Long European Peace”.
This book remedied that.
I take my solace where I can find it, meaning that, amid the depressing details of the high and mighty behaving badly at the Congress of Vienna (as reported in this book), I could at least tell myself that the antics of today's leaders are actually no less appalling than the leaders of 200+ years ago, incredible as it may seem. I shouldn't lower the boom too hard on Metternich in this regard because, the author makes clear, most of the leaders of Europe (as well as their assorted servants, lovers, and camp followers in Vienna) behaved in a way that people could more easily pull off in an era before it was possible to have one's every action recorded on video. The Tsar's conviction that he was the personal Christian savior of mankind did not prevent him from behaving like a petulant child and rutting like a boar in heat. The Prussians displayed the degree of flexibility and reasonableness for which they are well known. British aristocrats impressed everyone with their boorishness, provincialism, and hypocrisy.
But Metternich, wow, what a dolt! (if this book is to be believed). First of all, his aim seemed to be to give everyone in Europe a complete memory wipe and return to the happy time before the fall of the Bastille. Perhaps I can be accused of 20/20 hindsight, but it seems like you don't have to be a genius to understand that clocks only run in one direction. On the other hand, perhaps I should understand that the yearning for some mythical bygone golden age is not limited to post-Napoleonic Europe – even now, this urge has a strong grip on an impressive number of knuckleheads here in my native land, resulting in much unpleasantness.
In addition, Metternich apparently wasted many vital weeks of the Congress of Vienna dipping his wick in a new and novel mistress, and then getting all goopy and depressed when the mistress abandoned him for someone younger and handsomer. (Actually, more than one person younger etc.) Metternich's interlocutors reported that they could not make any progress on talks that would decide the fate of tens of thousand of people because Metternich was too busy monologuing on the bad treatment he had received from his sweetie.
All of this is possible to know now because, in between pronouncements of high purpose and mutual regard, all involved were diligently spying on each other and steaming open each other's mail, when they weren't seducing each other's mistresses in search of information.
I found all of the terrible behavior fairly entertaining, but perhaps you have less free time than I do. You may wish to proceed directly to the part of the book where the author takes an ax handle to Kissinger's thesis than Metternich was some sort of benevolent genius. I am happy to help you in this regard. The takedown starts on electronic “page” 564 of my (did I mention it was a bargain?) Kindle edition. (The text of the book, that is, the part that is NOT notes, bibliography, etc., is 581 pages long.)
“There was, in fact, no 'hundred-year peace'” writes Zamoyski (pg. 565), who then catalogs the dozens of (admittedly smaller-scale) wars, insurrections, rebellions, and revolutions that kept journalists and historians busy during this allegedly peaceful period.
In addition: “By effectively proscribing all change from below without placing any restraints on the powers of rules, [the Congress of Vienna] arrested normal development and created a situation in which, since absolutist rulers were unlikely agents of social, economic or political development, change could only be brought about by violent revolution” (page 569).
This book was a fun read and, even if the avalanche of names and places can overwhelm at times, it is full of interesting ideas and facts. For example, who knew that the creation of the Switzerland that we know today (Chapter 26) was so contentious? (A: A lot of people, I guess, but I didn't.) At another point (page 315), a woman is said to be the “inventor of the dirndl”. What? The dirndl had an inventor, like the light bulb? How is that even possible? Did the inventor, like Edison, have multiple failures before successfully creating the first dirndl? What did failed early attempts to create a dirndl look like? (But seriously: I think the allegation is that the dirndl, like many things which are today considered spontaneously occurring manifestations of native folk culture, was actually created by some nationalist person or committee long after its alleged spontaneous adoption by the people and land it is attributed to.)
At the end, I told the Long Suffering Wife that reading this book about the Congress of Vienna made me want to immediately go out and read another book about the Congress of Vienna.
“So, you're saying it's like Chinese food,” she replied, not looking up from her own book.
Read a 2007 review of this book from The Guardian by a British Labour MP that includes a summary of Zamoyski's “demolition job on Henry Kissinger” here.
I don't know if everybody goes through life with inaccurate ideas based on half-understood third-hand knowledge acquired in youth, but I do. Particularly, in this case, when I was a teenager, Henry Kissinger was at the height of his fame, committing the acts of … well … maybe “war criminality” is a little strong, so let's be charitable and call it “debatable morality and legality” … from which he even now hobbles freely along among us as he approaches his centennial. At the height of his fame, Kissinger's opinions on all matters were taken seriously and reported on at great length. At that time, I read that Henry, when younger, had written an academic volume in which he vigorously championed the actions and policies of Metternich, whom Kissinger seemed to think was the architect (at the Congress of Vienna) of a “long peace” which began with the fall of Napoleon and ended with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It was strongly implied that Henry, having educated himself mightily on the stratagems that Metternich used to achieve this admirable end, was applying his considerable grey matter to being the Metternich of our age, laboring mightily to give us a long peace during which we would live happily until our collective dotage.
Sadly, the long peace never materialized. Most of us realized that Henry wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was, even if he was clever than most of us. But that disillusionment, at least in my case, did not contaminate the memory of Metternich, who still in mind was labelled “Great Architect of Long European Peace”.
This book remedied that.
I take my solace where I can find it, meaning that, amid the depressing details of the high and mighty behaving badly at the Congress of Vienna (as reported in this book), I could at least tell myself that the antics of today's leaders are actually no less appalling than the leaders of 200+ years ago, incredible as it may seem. I shouldn't lower the boom too hard on Metternich in this regard because, the author makes clear, most of the leaders of Europe (as well as their assorted servants, lovers, and camp followers in Vienna) behaved in a way that people could more easily pull off in an era before it was possible to have one's every action recorded on video. The Tsar's conviction that he was the personal Christian savior of mankind did not prevent him from behaving like a petulant child and rutting like a boar in heat. The Prussians displayed the degree of flexibility and reasonableness for which they are well known. British aristocrats impressed everyone with their boorishness, provincialism, and hypocrisy.
But Metternich, wow, what a dolt! (if this book is to be believed). First of all, his aim seemed to be to give everyone in Europe a complete memory wipe and return to the happy time before the fall of the Bastille. Perhaps I can be accused of 20/20 hindsight, but it seems like you don't have to be a genius to understand that clocks only run in one direction. On the other hand, perhaps I should understand that the yearning for some mythical bygone golden age is not limited to post-Napoleonic Europe – even now, this urge has a strong grip on an impressive number of knuckleheads here in my native land, resulting in much unpleasantness.
In addition, Metternich apparently wasted many vital weeks of the Congress of Vienna dipping his wick in a new and novel mistress, and then getting all goopy and depressed when the mistress abandoned him for someone younger and handsomer. (Actually, more than one person younger etc.) Metternich's interlocutors reported that they could not make any progress on talks that would decide the fate of tens of thousand of people because Metternich was too busy monologuing on the bad treatment he had received from his sweetie.
All of this is possible to know now because, in between pronouncements of high purpose and mutual regard, all involved were diligently spying on each other and steaming open each other's mail, when they weren't seducing each other's mistresses in search of information.
I found all of the terrible behavior fairly entertaining, but perhaps you have less free time than I do. You may wish to proceed directly to the part of the book where the author takes an ax handle to Kissinger's thesis than Metternich was some sort of benevolent genius. I am happy to help you in this regard. The takedown starts on electronic “page” 564 of my (did I mention it was a bargain?) Kindle edition. (The text of the book, that is, the part that is NOT notes, bibliography, etc., is 581 pages long.)
“There was, in fact, no 'hundred-year peace'” writes Zamoyski (pg. 565), who then catalogs the dozens of (admittedly smaller-scale) wars, insurrections, rebellions, and revolutions that kept journalists and historians busy during this allegedly peaceful period.
In addition: “By effectively proscribing all change from below without placing any restraints on the powers of rules, [the Congress of Vienna] arrested normal development and created a situation in which, since absolutist rulers were unlikely agents of social, economic or political development, change could only be brought about by violent revolution” (page 569).
This book was a fun read and, even if the avalanche of names and places can overwhelm at times, it is full of interesting ideas and facts. For example, who knew that the creation of the Switzerland that we know today (Chapter 26) was so contentious? (A: A lot of people, I guess, but I didn't.) At another point (page 315), a woman is said to be the “inventor of the dirndl”. What? The dirndl had an inventor, like the light bulb? How is that even possible? Did the inventor, like Edison, have multiple failures before successfully creating the first dirndl? What did failed early attempts to create a dirndl look like? (But seriously: I think the allegation is that the dirndl, like many things which are today considered spontaneously occurring manifestations of native folk culture, was actually created by some nationalist person or committee long after its alleged spontaneous adoption by the people and land it is attributed to.)
At the end, I told the Long Suffering Wife that reading this book about the Congress of Vienna made me want to immediately go out and read another book about the Congress of Vienna.
“So, you're saying it's like Chinese food,” she replied, not looking up from her own book.
Read a 2007 review of this book from The Guardian by a British Labour MP that includes a summary of Zamoyski's “demolition job on Henry Kissinger” here.
April 14, 2022
Out of the few dozen books I have read concerning the Napoleonic Wars, the majority have focused on the campaigns and battles, the armies and uniforms, the generals and admirals; in other words, the aspects of history that appeal most to an adolescent boy. Indeed, these subjects still remain of interest to me, but I also have a newfound desire to better understand the context of the Napoleonic Wars and their wider consequences. Where better to start than the Congress of Vienna?
Adam Zamoysky’s Rites of Peace was exactly the book that I was looking for when I chose to read about the Congress of Vienna. It must be said straightaway that this book’s scope is much greater than just the congress itself, in that it covers the events leading up to Vienna and its consequences after the fact. The book begins with the aftermath of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and does not even reach the congress in Vienna until well over two hundred pages in.
It would be difficult to overstate the complexity of the diplomatic relations between the major powers of Europe amidst the campaigns of 1813 and 1814. Great Britain was the staunchest enemy of Napoleon, with Russia close behind after the invasion of 1812. Meanwhile, both Austria and Prussia had been Napoleon’s erstwhile allies. The three continental powers were nearly as concerned with expanding their own territories (primarily in Poland) as with reaching Paris, and this dynamic would only grow fiercer as the threat from Napoleon diminished and eventually went away.
Before Vienna, there were a number of conferences and meetings between diplomats and ministers, and even peace talks with Napoleon. Zamoyski expertly guides the reader through these lesser known talks which took place against the backdrop of the war. All in all, the buildup to the Congress of Vienna is an essential part of the book because the decisions made at that time would have significant consequences later on. Moreover, Zamoyski uses the preliminary chapters to introduce the main cast of characters who would go on to play leading roles in Vienna and elsewhere. I suppose one of the reasons why the Congress of Vienna is so fascinating a historical event is because of the larger-than-life personalities involved in it.
One of the constants throughout the book is the balance the author strikes between including insight into the personal lives of the principal characters while maintaining a flowing narrative covering the diplomatic proceedings. This balance extends to how he treats the extravagant social events that were the natural result of half the crowned heads of Europe—and much else besides—spending months together in what was then a relatively small city. As an aside, I found it fascinating that the Congress was originally intended to be a small, brief gathering and that the pomp and ostentatiousness was an unexpected development.
Rites of Peace is a true pleasure to read. I can only recall one instance instance—the final settlement of Switzerland—where the narrative was bogged down by the minutiae of diplomatic affairs. Adam Zamoyski deserves a great deal of praise for being able to provide a comprehensive diplomatic/political history that does not become repetitive or dry. One aspect of his writing that I particularly enjoyed was how he let the story unfold on its own without undue analysis. This is not an academic history, though that takes nothing away from its reliability or value to the general reader.
This makes the concluding chapter all the more startling when Zamoyski delivers a scathing condemnation of the principal actors (e.g. Metternich, Castlereagh, Alexander, etc.) and their policies. It would be inappropriate in this review to delve deeply into a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the final settlements made by the congress, but I think it’s worth mentioning his overwhelming stance on the subject. He thoroughly disagrees with the apologists of the congress, most notably Henry Kissinger in the mid twentieth century, his main points being the following. One, there was no “hundred-year peace” between the congress and the First World War. Two, the settlements that were made at the congress, especially the most hotly contested ones, broke down relatively quickly. Three, the great powers acted according to the own whims at the conference without respect to either the minor powers or public opinion. This chapter was a compelling conclusion to the book, which left me thinking about the subject days later, and that is one of the signs of a good book, is it not?
Indeed, the Rites of Peace is an excellent book, from the writing to the research to the maps, even to the quality of the paper and the color plates. My only quibbles with it were the overuse of the phrase fait accompli and the misattribution of the battle of Bailén as a British victory, when in fact it was the most important Spanish victory of the whole Peninsular war. But, needless to say, neither of these faults spoil what it both an edifying and entertaining book.
Adam Zamoysky’s Rites of Peace was exactly the book that I was looking for when I chose to read about the Congress of Vienna. It must be said straightaway that this book’s scope is much greater than just the congress itself, in that it covers the events leading up to Vienna and its consequences after the fact. The book begins with the aftermath of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and does not even reach the congress in Vienna until well over two hundred pages in.
It would be difficult to overstate the complexity of the diplomatic relations between the major powers of Europe amidst the campaigns of 1813 and 1814. Great Britain was the staunchest enemy of Napoleon, with Russia close behind after the invasion of 1812. Meanwhile, both Austria and Prussia had been Napoleon’s erstwhile allies. The three continental powers were nearly as concerned with expanding their own territories (primarily in Poland) as with reaching Paris, and this dynamic would only grow fiercer as the threat from Napoleon diminished and eventually went away.
Before Vienna, there were a number of conferences and meetings between diplomats and ministers, and even peace talks with Napoleon. Zamoyski expertly guides the reader through these lesser known talks which took place against the backdrop of the war. All in all, the buildup to the Congress of Vienna is an essential part of the book because the decisions made at that time would have significant consequences later on. Moreover, Zamoyski uses the preliminary chapters to introduce the main cast of characters who would go on to play leading roles in Vienna and elsewhere. I suppose one of the reasons why the Congress of Vienna is so fascinating a historical event is because of the larger-than-life personalities involved in it.
One of the constants throughout the book is the balance the author strikes between including insight into the personal lives of the principal characters while maintaining a flowing narrative covering the diplomatic proceedings. This balance extends to how he treats the extravagant social events that were the natural result of half the crowned heads of Europe—and much else besides—spending months together in what was then a relatively small city. As an aside, I found it fascinating that the Congress was originally intended to be a small, brief gathering and that the pomp and ostentatiousness was an unexpected development.
Rites of Peace is a true pleasure to read. I can only recall one instance instance—the final settlement of Switzerland—where the narrative was bogged down by the minutiae of diplomatic affairs. Adam Zamoyski deserves a great deal of praise for being able to provide a comprehensive diplomatic/political history that does not become repetitive or dry. One aspect of his writing that I particularly enjoyed was how he let the story unfold on its own without undue analysis. This is not an academic history, though that takes nothing away from its reliability or value to the general reader.
This makes the concluding chapter all the more startling when Zamoyski delivers a scathing condemnation of the principal actors (e.g. Metternich, Castlereagh, Alexander, etc.) and their policies. It would be inappropriate in this review to delve deeply into a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the final settlements made by the congress, but I think it’s worth mentioning his overwhelming stance on the subject. He thoroughly disagrees with the apologists of the congress, most notably Henry Kissinger in the mid twentieth century, his main points being the following. One, there was no “hundred-year peace” between the congress and the First World War. Two, the settlements that were made at the congress, especially the most hotly contested ones, broke down relatively quickly. Three, the great powers acted according to the own whims at the conference without respect to either the minor powers or public opinion. This chapter was a compelling conclusion to the book, which left me thinking about the subject days later, and that is one of the signs of a good book, is it not?
Indeed, the Rites of Peace is an excellent book, from the writing to the research to the maps, even to the quality of the paper and the color plates. My only quibbles with it were the overuse of the phrase fait accompli and the misattribution of the battle of Bailén as a British victory, when in fact it was the most important Spanish victory of the whole Peninsular war. But, needless to say, neither of these faults spoil what it both an edifying and entertaining book.
November 29, 2021
Kein Heldenlied, eher eine Ansammlung von Schurkenstückchen mit fatalen Nachwirkungen bis zu zwei Weltkriegen. Interessanter Blick hinter die Kulissen der Allianzen gegen Napoleon, Waterloo in weniger als zwei Seiten ist schon rekordverdächtig knapp, aber es funktioniert. Die Motivationen von Alexander, Castlereagh, Metternich und Talleyrand zeigt AZ ganz großartig auf, vieles, was Napoleon nie so recht begreifen konnte, auch allerlei Angebote. die der Kaiser auf keinen Fall annehmen konnte, ergeben einen Sinn. Als der Wiener Kongress beginnt, sind die Hauptakteure hervorragend eingeführt, beim frischen Personal, insbesondere den Gespielinnen sollte man sich allerdings einen Zettel anlegen, auch in Sachen Verwandtschaftsgrade.
Für den Erkenntnisgewinn, auch in Sachen Folgen bis zum Ausbruch des ersten Weltkriegs aufgrund der Belgien-Garantie der Briten, die zu den Nachwehen des Kongresses gehört, vergebe ich fünf Sterne, dasselbe gilt für den Klatschfaktor, man wird wirklich gut unterhalten. Bei so viel Prominenz in Unterwäsche bleibt der Respekt natürlich vollkommen auf der Strecke. Ein wenig auch die Fasination, nicht nur in Sachen Waterloo oder Leipzig. Was in den üblichen Darstellungen zu Napoleon groß geschrieben wird, ist hier eine Fußnote. Von daher empfiehlt es sich durchaus, zumindest die entsprechenden Passagen einer Napoleon-Bio zu Gemüte zu führen. Es muss ja nicht das komplette Martyrium von Sankt Helena als Nachtisch aufgegesen werden.
Für den Erkenntnisgewinn, auch in Sachen Folgen bis zum Ausbruch des ersten Weltkriegs aufgrund der Belgien-Garantie der Briten, die zu den Nachwehen des Kongresses gehört, vergebe ich fünf Sterne, dasselbe gilt für den Klatschfaktor, man wird wirklich gut unterhalten. Bei so viel Prominenz in Unterwäsche bleibt der Respekt natürlich vollkommen auf der Strecke. Ein wenig auch die Fasination, nicht nur in Sachen Waterloo oder Leipzig. Was in den üblichen Darstellungen zu Napoleon groß geschrieben wird, ist hier eine Fußnote. Von daher empfiehlt es sich durchaus, zumindest die entsprechenden Passagen einer Napoleon-Bio zu Gemüte zu führen. Es muss ja nicht das komplette Martyrium von Sankt Helena als Nachtisch aufgegesen werden.
August 31, 2012
A great book of European History and the downfall of Napolean and the Congress of Vienna that followed. This is beautifully written and easy to follow in what is a mighty book. This book describes in detail the fallout from Napoleon invading Russia and retreating into exile. The depths that the Europeans will go to curtail the might of the French and all the various players trying to get a piece of the action.
December 29, 2021
Ich hatte mich sehr auf diese Lektüre gefreut, nachdem mir der Vorgänger 1812 so gut gefallen hatte.
Doch diesmal war ich enttäuscht.
Der Russlandfeldzug im ersten Buch war umsoviel interessanter.
Hier gibt es zuviele kleinste Geschehnisse, die alle erzählt werden.
Jede Affäre, Intrige und auch jede Person und Position ist zwar interessant, aber so geballt fühlte ich mich erschlagen und das Lesen zog sich in die Länge.
Für an Geschichte interessierte Leser vermutlich sehr interessant, für mich zu detailverliebt.
Doch diesmal war ich enttäuscht.
Der Russlandfeldzug im ersten Buch war umsoviel interessanter.
Hier gibt es zuviele kleinste Geschehnisse, die alle erzählt werden.
Jede Affäre, Intrige und auch jede Person und Position ist zwar interessant, aber so geballt fühlte ich mich erschlagen und das Lesen zog sich in die Länge.
Für an Geschichte interessierte Leser vermutlich sehr interessant, für mich zu detailverliebt.
November 17, 2015
Zamoyski brilliantly conveys the utter chaos and indiscipline of the meetings as well as the behind-the-scenes politics of pre-Congress Europe. He also shows how lost and ignored people with "smaller" problems were--even if those "small" problems involved countries. All the leaders of the dominant countries had smaller places which they wanted to use for one reason or another--bribery, blackmail, etc.
June 28, 2024
It takes a writer with Zamoyski's verve to make a history as complex and convoluted as this readable, let alone enjoyable.
His rendering of the 1812 campaign is my favourite short book on the subject (the best long one being Paul Britten Austin's 1812 trilogy, which can also be found as a single volume), and his book Warsaw, 1920 showed he can be a master of compression and clarity. For many readers who love the Napoleonic era it's the military side, with its pomp, its grandeur, and its horror, and all on such a huge scale, that seduce. Here however we're primarily dealing with politics, and the horse-trading of international diplomacy.
Zamoyski's much-vaunted gift for languages is very evident in his writing, no doubt benefitting, as do his researches, from the fact that he speaks/reads many of the languages necessary to make research for a book such as this very wide-ranging and thorough. The result, for me - and I mean no disrespect to author/historian Charles Esdaile - is that Zamoyski's book on the Congress of Vienna is far more readable and enjoyable than Esdaile's Napoleon’s Wars, another of those rarer books on the Napoleonic era to focus primarily on the political aspect. Admittedly this comparison is a touch unfair, as Esdaile's book covers 1803-15, whilst Zamoyski's focus is more narrow and specific (though hardly less complex). But the basic point stands: Zamoyski makes a difficult and very Byzantine chapter of Napoleonic history pretty palatable. No mean feat.
There are perhaps, a number of reasons for this: one is the pen-portraits of numerous fascinating characters, such as Tsar Alexander, Metternich and Talleyrand, another would be the earthier elements of the narrative, such as the military conflicts and sexual escapades. Zamoyski's style is more like an author of fiction, in some respects, than a historian aiming at dry impartiality. You'd need to be more expert than me to determine if this makes his depictions less reliable (in reading about Napoleon's marshals the contrast ... [Delderfield vs. ?])
The Napoleonic Wars can be seen as a very serious and significant reverse to the moves that the French and American revolutions were suggestive of, inasmuch as they might be construed as enabling a broadening of the 'the Enlightenment project', with Napoleon himself in part responsible for this, but his enemies and opponents even more so. The upshot of which, and the Congress of Vienna embodies this, was a mostly retrograde movement, albeit that a certain amount of progress (or change, if one wants to be less contentious) could not be reversed.
Some reviewers are critical of Zamoyski, saying he's too populist and not academic enough, or that he's partisan and has a Polish axe to grind, and so on. Personally I really enjoyed this book, and my main criticism is that, in a book populated by so many characters, the lack of a 'cast list' type section is a regrettable omission.
His rendering of the 1812 campaign is my favourite short book on the subject (the best long one being Paul Britten Austin's 1812 trilogy, which can also be found as a single volume), and his book Warsaw, 1920 showed he can be a master of compression and clarity. For many readers who love the Napoleonic era it's the military side, with its pomp, its grandeur, and its horror, and all on such a huge scale, that seduce. Here however we're primarily dealing with politics, and the horse-trading of international diplomacy.
Zamoyski's much-vaunted gift for languages is very evident in his writing, no doubt benefitting, as do his researches, from the fact that he speaks/reads many of the languages necessary to make research for a book such as this very wide-ranging and thorough. The result, for me - and I mean no disrespect to author/historian Charles Esdaile - is that Zamoyski's book on the Congress of Vienna is far more readable and enjoyable than Esdaile's Napoleon’s Wars, another of those rarer books on the Napoleonic era to focus primarily on the political aspect. Admittedly this comparison is a touch unfair, as Esdaile's book covers 1803-15, whilst Zamoyski's focus is more narrow and specific (though hardly less complex). But the basic point stands: Zamoyski makes a difficult and very Byzantine chapter of Napoleonic history pretty palatable. No mean feat.
There are perhaps, a number of reasons for this: one is the pen-portraits of numerous fascinating characters, such as Tsar Alexander, Metternich and Talleyrand, another would be the earthier elements of the narrative, such as the military conflicts and sexual escapades. Zamoyski's style is more like an author of fiction, in some respects, than a historian aiming at dry impartiality. You'd need to be more expert than me to determine if this makes his depictions less reliable (in reading about Napoleon's marshals the contrast ... [Delderfield vs. ?])
The Napoleonic Wars can be seen as a very serious and significant reverse to the moves that the French and American revolutions were suggestive of, inasmuch as they might be construed as enabling a broadening of the 'the Enlightenment project', with Napoleon himself in part responsible for this, but his enemies and opponents even more so. The upshot of which, and the Congress of Vienna embodies this, was a mostly retrograde movement, albeit that a certain amount of progress (or change, if one wants to be less contentious) could not be reversed.
Some reviewers are critical of Zamoyski, saying he's too populist and not academic enough, or that he's partisan and has a Polish axe to grind, and so on. Personally I really enjoyed this book, and my main criticism is that, in a book populated by so many characters, the lack of a 'cast list' type section is a regrettable omission.
July 26, 2009
For two decades the scourge of the ancien régime Napoleon Bonaparte has been the fear and master of the crowned heads of Europe, but his attempt to add Russia to his list of conquests proved the beginning of his downfall. In December 1812 he was forced back to Paris in advance of his retreating army by the Russians, who as they advanced across Europe, turned his former allies Prussia, Austria, and the other German states into theirs. In April 1813 the allied armies joined by England and several exiled kings arrived in Paris and forced Napoleon’s surrender. But months before the question of how to undo what revolutionary and then imperial France had done to Europe occupied the minds of the kings and their diplomats as much as defeating the French army.
Following victory parades and triumphal visits they convened in the Austrian capital in 1814 to work out the details of the peace. They were filled with a hope for a lasting peace and the new ideal of international law. They even invited the defeated power, France, represented by newly restored monarchy to attend the Congress. Ironically the French ambassador, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, had previously done the same job for the last French ruler, Napoleon. The Congress with its multiple attending sovereigns immediately became the new center of European diplomacy and social life, compete with accompanying diversions. As the author puts it,
“Perhaps the most striking aspect of the great charade known as the Congress of Vienna is the continuous interplay between the serious and the frivolous, an almost parasitical co-existence of activities which might appear to be mutually exclusive. The rattling of sabres and talk of blood mingled with the strains of the waltz and court gossip, and the most ridiculously trivial pursuits went hand in hand with impressive work.” Page 385
Zamoyski has plowed though voluminous official archives and memoirs of the participants to give a detailed, highly readable, account of the preparation for and the proceedings of the Congress, both official and social, followed by his own assessment of what it accomplished: consultation and cooperation between multiple states, what we would now call a Summit Meeting, as a means of resolving an international crisis, and what it failed to accomplish: a permanent peace and stable boundaries.
Following victory parades and triumphal visits they convened in the Austrian capital in 1814 to work out the details of the peace. They were filled with a hope for a lasting peace and the new ideal of international law. They even invited the defeated power, France, represented by newly restored monarchy to attend the Congress. Ironically the French ambassador, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, had previously done the same job for the last French ruler, Napoleon. The Congress with its multiple attending sovereigns immediately became the new center of European diplomacy and social life, compete with accompanying diversions. As the author puts it,
“Perhaps the most striking aspect of the great charade known as the Congress of Vienna is the continuous interplay between the serious and the frivolous, an almost parasitical co-existence of activities which might appear to be mutually exclusive. The rattling of sabres and talk of blood mingled with the strains of the waltz and court gossip, and the most ridiculously trivial pursuits went hand in hand with impressive work.” Page 385
Zamoyski has plowed though voluminous official archives and memoirs of the participants to give a detailed, highly readable, account of the preparation for and the proceedings of the Congress, both official and social, followed by his own assessment of what it accomplished: consultation and cooperation between multiple states, what we would now call a Summit Meeting, as a means of resolving an international crisis, and what it failed to accomplish: a permanent peace and stable boundaries.
September 1, 2014
This is a great book written by an historian who understands the era of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars as well anyone currently writing on the topic. To research this book, Zamoyski read all the relevant material in the French, English, Russian, German and Austrian archives. Thus he truly manages to take you into the minds of all the parties at the table.
Zamoyski integrates all the material from the diplomatic sources with the police reports gathered by Metternich who hosted the conference and who had spies following all the foreign ambassadors. As a result Zamoyski is able to integrate the politics of the bedroom that of the conference room better than any other historian since Tacitus.
Having a connection to Poland, I heartily agree with Zamoyski that the 100 year peace which supposedly followed the Congress of Vienna is a myth. Europe was constantly at war during the period between the Congress of Vienna and the outbreak of World War I. The Congress of Vienna merely provided a structure whereby the Austrians and Russians maintained their tyrannical regimes in Central Europe while France and England maintained that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Bravo Zamoyski. I hope your next book will arrive soon.
Zamoyski integrates all the material from the diplomatic sources with the police reports gathered by Metternich who hosted the conference and who had spies following all the foreign ambassadors. As a result Zamoyski is able to integrate the politics of the bedroom that of the conference room better than any other historian since Tacitus.
Having a connection to Poland, I heartily agree with Zamoyski that the 100 year peace which supposedly followed the Congress of Vienna is a myth. Europe was constantly at war during the period between the Congress of Vienna and the outbreak of World War I. The Congress of Vienna merely provided a structure whereby the Austrians and Russians maintained their tyrannical regimes in Central Europe while France and England maintained that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Bravo Zamoyski. I hope your next book will arrive soon.
July 23, 2019
A monumental book that accurately conveys the social sense of the Congress of Vienna with ample discussion of what came before and after it. The way in which the delegates manipulated each other through toying with women and personal affairs was fascinating. There was a regular Tale of Genji going on in Vienna. It was hardly a "Concert of Europe" so much as a cacophony, and it resulted in a France that was too small, a Germany too divided, and smaller nations dismantled, engendering nationalism and revolutions everywhere. This book is a bit too long and the details covered don't do a good job of proving the points the author wants to make. These are good points, though, and if you want a good summary of how the Congress of Vienna reflected dysfunctional behaviors in Europe, check out the concluding chapter.
July 4, 2013
As good read - I was left wanting more, even after 650 pages.
March 18, 2020
Well written and easy to follow considering it involves numerous personalities and intrigues following Napoleons retreat from Moscow, his exile to Elba, the mechanations leading to the Vienna Congress, Napoleons escape back to France and the culmination of Waterloo and the final Treaty of Paris. Although Napoleon is a central figure in all this he actually lurks largely in the background with the concentration of the book on the allies bickering and infighting over the spoils and trying to turn the clock back to the ancien regimes and total monarchy. If your interested in this tumultuous period of history then Zamoysku does an admirable job of presenting it all in a very readable manner.
October 31, 2024
Goed boek. Soms alleen wat langdradig in de beschrijvingen van allen bals en festiviteiten die de bezoekers van het Congres van Wenen bijwoonden. Aan de ene kant is het fascinerend hoe Adam Zamoyski zo diep in de bronnen is gedoken en er zodoende tot in uitgebreid detail kan vertellen over de hoffelijke intriges en de diplomatieke ontwikkelingen. Maar aan de andere kant had ik soms gewild dat er meer met deze informatie gedaan werd dan een opsomming van feesten en wie met wie ging.
September 14, 2019
Zamoyski ott veszi fel a fonalat, ahol előző könyvében elejtette: amikor a végzetesen leamortizálódott francia sereg kénytelen volt visszavonulni Oroszországból, nyomában pedig beözönlött Európába a győzedelmes orosz hadsereg. Ebben a történetben Napóleon csak statiszta, aki egy szépen-lassan elolvadó katonai erő élén vánszorog*, a szerző inkább azokra fókuszál, akik, mint a keselyűk, egy egyre bővülő szövetség részeként eredményeinek felszámolására törekszenek. Zamoyski talán legnagyobb erénye, hogy ezeket a figurákat milyen élettelin ábrázolja. Ott van például a magára egyfajta modern megváltóként tekintő Sándor cár, a ravasz Talleyrand, a katona Wellington és személyes kedvencem, az osztrák Metternich, aki annyira tündérien nagyképű, hogy az már cukiságszámba megy. (És még sokan mások.) Ők azok, akik azon melegében, még Napóleon lemondása előtt nekiállnak rendezni az európai helyzetet, figyelembe véve egyrészt az ún. győztesek igényeit, másrészt pedig megelőzni, hogy efféle kataklizma a jövőben előfordulhasson.
Rendezni. Hm. Nem lesz könnyű. Ugyanis az európai helyzet finoman szólva is egy merő kupleráj. Egyrészt ugye ott vannak azok az uralkodók (élükön a Bourbonokkal), akiket a nagy Napóleon kipaterolt a hatalomból. Ez így szimpla. Másrészt akadnak itt olyanok, akiket ugyan Napóleon paterolt be a hatalomba, de remek érzékkel ellene fordultak, amikor szorult körülötte a hurok. (Köztük még Napóleon rokonait vagy egykori tábornokait is ott találjuk, mint például Nápoly királyát, Murat-ot, vagy a svéd uralkodót, Bernardotte-ot.) Na és persze ott vannak a nagyhatalmak is, a maguk összetett és egymásnak ellentmondó igényeivel. Úgyhogy elkezdődik a szörnyűséges pókerjátszma, amiben a koronás fők és sunyi diplomaták úgy cserélgetik egymás között a földterületeket és városokat, mintha azok állatos albumba való matricák lennének. Az, hogy mondjuk egy lipcsei cipészmestertől megkérdezzék, hogy ő most szász, osztrák, porosz, orosz vagy épp antarktiszi alattvaló kíván lenni a későbbiekben, a fejükben meg sem fordul. És úgy egyáltalán: igyekeznek semmit sem észrevenni, semmit sem felhasználni abból, amit a francia seregek nyilvánvalóan széthordtak a kontinensen – az ekkor még édestestvérekként funkcionáló nacionalizmust és liberalizmust**. Ugyanakkor elképesztően sokat báloznak, és irritatív mennyiségű különböző társastáncot mutatnak be.
Zamoyski üdítően kritikusan szemléli a bécsi rendezés folyamatát. Akadnak (köztük nem kisebb személyiség, mint Henry Kissinger), akik ezekre a tárgyalásokra úgy tekintenek, mint egy 100 éves béke előkészítésére, ami stabilitást adott Európának. Zamoyski szerint ez nettó marhaság, és igazat kell adjak neki. Hisz alig telt el 30 év a leírt események után, a kongresszus legfontosabb eredményei máris semmissé váltak (például a lengyel autonómia), a századfordulóra pedig tényleg semmi sem maradt belőlük. Másfelől aligha tekinthető békésnek ez a század, ha figyelembe vesszük (hogy csak a legvéresebb konfliktusokat említsük) a ’48-as eseményeket, a krími háborút, a porosz-osztrák és porosz-francia összecsapásokat, hogy a tekintélyes mennyiségű polgárháborúról és gyarmati vérontásról ne is beszéljünk. Ráadásul ezek mindannyian azokban a hibákban gyökereznek, amiket a bécsi kongresszus elkövetett: az új ideológiák, vagyis parasztosan szólva: a korszellem teljes figyelmen kívül hagyásán. Ezeknek levázolásában a szerző igazán pazarul teljesít.
Van azért a könyvnek egy nyilvánvaló hibája – az, ami miatt valószínűleg egy narratív történelmi munka sem kívánta eddig részletezni ezeket az ügyeket –, és ezzel a problémával vív Zamoyski végig hősies (és néhol sikeres) küzdelmet, amikor a szöveget telepakolja a prominens személyiségek budoárpletykáival. A probléma pedig az, hogy ez a körülményes adok-kapok az országok között (hogy a kerti fészer legyen a poroszoké, de akkor a ruszkiknak oda kell adni a fürdőszoba-használati jogot a hét páratlan napjain, viszont ebben az esetben az osztrákoké a fűnyíró, amit ugyan már odaígértünk a szászoknak, de őket meg kárpótoljuk azzal, hogy elvihetik a konyhakredencet, etc., etc, etc., a végtelenségig), szóval ez a kozmikus cserebere, ez valami iszonyatosan unalmas tud lenni.
* És egyben mumus, aki azért egyszer még alaposan rá fog ijeszteni a szövetségesekre.
** Ebben egyesek egész elképesztő szinten teljesítenek. A Rómába visszatérő pápa például nem csak a kompromittált köztisztségviselőktől szabadul meg, de a zsidókat is visszaküldi a gettóba, sőt: a közvilágítást és a védőoltásokat is megszünteti. Merthogy nem lehet jó, ami a franciáktól származik.
Rendezni. Hm. Nem lesz könnyű. Ugyanis az európai helyzet finoman szólva is egy merő kupleráj. Egyrészt ugye ott vannak azok az uralkodók (élükön a Bourbonokkal), akiket a nagy Napóleon kipaterolt a hatalomból. Ez így szimpla. Másrészt akadnak itt olyanok, akiket ugyan Napóleon paterolt be a hatalomba, de remek érzékkel ellene fordultak, amikor szorult körülötte a hurok. (Köztük még Napóleon rokonait vagy egykori tábornokait is ott találjuk, mint például Nápoly királyát, Murat-ot, vagy a svéd uralkodót, Bernardotte-ot.) Na és persze ott vannak a nagyhatalmak is, a maguk összetett és egymásnak ellentmondó igényeivel. Úgyhogy elkezdődik a szörnyűséges pókerjátszma, amiben a koronás fők és sunyi diplomaták úgy cserélgetik egymás között a földterületeket és városokat, mintha azok állatos albumba való matricák lennének. Az, hogy mondjuk egy lipcsei cipészmestertől megkérdezzék, hogy ő most szász, osztrák, porosz, orosz vagy épp antarktiszi alattvaló kíván lenni a későbbiekben, a fejükben meg sem fordul. És úgy egyáltalán: igyekeznek semmit sem észrevenni, semmit sem felhasználni abból, amit a francia seregek nyilvánvalóan széthordtak a kontinensen – az ekkor még édestestvérekként funkcionáló nacionalizmust és liberalizmust**. Ugyanakkor elképesztően sokat báloznak, és irritatív mennyiségű különböző társastáncot mutatnak be.
Zamoyski üdítően kritikusan szemléli a bécsi rendezés folyamatát. Akadnak (köztük nem kisebb személyiség, mint Henry Kissinger), akik ezekre a tárgyalásokra úgy tekintenek, mint egy 100 éves béke előkészítésére, ami stabilitást adott Európának. Zamoyski szerint ez nettó marhaság, és igazat kell adjak neki. Hisz alig telt el 30 év a leírt események után, a kongresszus legfontosabb eredményei máris semmissé váltak (például a lengyel autonómia), a századfordulóra pedig tényleg semmi sem maradt belőlük. Másfelől aligha tekinthető békésnek ez a század, ha figyelembe vesszük (hogy csak a legvéresebb konfliktusokat említsük) a ’48-as eseményeket, a krími háborút, a porosz-osztrák és porosz-francia összecsapásokat, hogy a tekintélyes mennyiségű polgárháborúról és gyarmati vérontásról ne is beszéljünk. Ráadásul ezek mindannyian azokban a hibákban gyökereznek, amiket a bécsi kongresszus elkövetett: az új ideológiák, vagyis parasztosan szólva: a korszellem teljes figyelmen kívül hagyásán. Ezeknek levázolásában a szerző igazán pazarul teljesít.
Van azért a könyvnek egy nyilvánvaló hibája – az, ami miatt valószínűleg egy narratív történelmi munka sem kívánta eddig részletezni ezeket az ügyeket –, és ezzel a problémával vív Zamoyski végig hősies (és néhol sikeres) küzdelmet, amikor a szöveget telepakolja a prominens személyiségek budoárpletykáival. A probléma pedig az, hogy ez a körülményes adok-kapok az országok között (hogy a kerti fészer legyen a poroszoké, de akkor a ruszkiknak oda kell adni a fürdőszoba-használati jogot a hét páratlan napjain, viszont ebben az esetben az osztrákoké a fűnyíró, amit ugyan már odaígértünk a szászoknak, de őket meg kárpótoljuk azzal, hogy elvihetik a konyhakredencet, etc., etc, etc., a végtelenségig), szóval ez a kozmikus cserebere, ez valami iszonyatosan unalmas tud lenni.
* És egyben mumus, aki azért egyszer még alaposan rá fog ijeszteni a szövetségesekre.
** Ebben egyesek egész elképesztő szinten teljesítenek. A Rómába visszatérő pápa például nem csak a kompromittált köztisztségviselőktől szabadul meg, de a zsidókat is visszaküldi a gettóba, sőt: a közvilágítást és a védőoltásokat is megszünteti. Merthogy nem lehet jó, ami a franciáktól származik.
May 19, 2019
This book was a thorough examination of the Vienna Congress, with just enough levity to carry it through the dryest parts. However, I have a long-time interest in the Vienna Congress, and I think that to casual observers this book would be rather dry.
I did also find some factual errors: for example, there was a really bizarre constant defamation of Frederick I of Wurttenberg, who was claimed to be, in this book, five feet tall and "six feet in circumference." Considering how unlikely this was, when I looked it up I found out he'd been six-foot eleven and a little over four hundred pounds, which is not that much when distributed on the frame of a major league baskerball player. Combined with how often Frederick I was called "pig-like" and "corpulent" and how much Zamoyski described his "rolls of fat," at every opportunity (not to mention that he was the only historical figure he made a point to hint at being gay), it really felt unnecessary and unprofessional. Did Frederick I give Zamoyski a wedgie in high school? Did Fred shove Zamoyski in a locker?
I just don't get it, and it makes me distrust a lot of the more entertaining information in the novel. The charm of the Vienna Congress is in its excesses and its gossip, but Zamoyski would skim over events like Beethoven's last concerts or the suicide of Castlereagh when The author also fell into the tropes of portraying women as either vixens or virgins, and it got very old very fast. Unfortunately, the only information I felt I could trust was the diplomatic events, and even my eyes tire of reading chapter after chapter of Prussia demanding Saxony from Austria and Britain demanding Belgium as a neutral zone and Russia demanding Poland from everyone.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good book, but I had some very particular issues with it. However, the final chapter made some excellent points about the events that reshaped, in some way, my opinions about all the participants...with the exception of Talleyrand. Talleyrand is always an exception.
If you love the Congress of Vienna and have to know more, check it out. If you love fun history, read Vienna 1814: How the Conquerers of Napoleon Made Love, War, and Peace at the Congress of Vienna instead.
I did also find some factual errors: for example, there was a really bizarre constant defamation of Frederick I of Wurttenberg, who was claimed to be, in this book, five feet tall and "six feet in circumference." Considering how unlikely this was, when I looked it up I found out he'd been six-foot eleven and a little over four hundred pounds, which is not that much when distributed on the frame of a major league baskerball player. Combined with how often Frederick I was called "pig-like" and "corpulent" and how much Zamoyski described his "rolls of fat," at every opportunity (not to mention that he was the only historical figure he made a point to hint at being gay), it really felt unnecessary and unprofessional. Did Frederick I give Zamoyski a wedgie in high school? Did Fred shove Zamoyski in a locker?
I just don't get it, and it makes me distrust a lot of the more entertaining information in the novel. The charm of the Vienna Congress is in its excesses and its gossip, but Zamoyski would skim over events like Beethoven's last concerts or the suicide of Castlereagh when The author also fell into the tropes of portraying women as either vixens or virgins, and it got very old very fast. Unfortunately, the only information I felt I could trust was the diplomatic events, and even my eyes tire of reading chapter after chapter of Prussia demanding Saxony from Austria and Britain demanding Belgium as a neutral zone and Russia demanding Poland from everyone.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good book, but I had some very particular issues with it. However, the final chapter made some excellent points about the events that reshaped, in some way, my opinions about all the participants...with the exception of Talleyrand. Talleyrand is always an exception.
If you love the Congress of Vienna and have to know more, check it out. If you love fun history, read Vienna 1814: How the Conquerers of Napoleon Made Love, War, and Peace at the Congress of Vienna instead.
February 11, 2012
Zamoyski is a gifted writer, mixing grand histoire with the daily life and petty quibbles between the key players of the Vienna Congres.
If you want to learn how the fate of Europe was decided (partly) in the ballrooms and boudoirs of Vienna in 1814 - 1815, read this book. How personalities like Tsar Alexander, Count Metternich, Hardenberg and others influenced the outcome of the congres and the way Europe was shaped after Napoleons defeat at Leipzig and specially after his escape from Elba and Waterloo.
A new reactionairy Europe evolved that tried to hide the revolutionary and later liberal gains of the French Revolution and Napoleon by stiffling all initiative for more freedom. In vain, as the revolutions of 1848 showed.
At Vienna they created big nations who would fight over Europe in the century to come: Prussia, Austria, and Russia, together with the UK and France.
Some of their descisions influenced history hundred years and more later; bringing the southern Netherlands to the (new) Kingdom of the Netherlands as a buffer against France. Later this became Belgium and it gave the Germans twice the opportunity to attack Francee through a neutral corridor in 1914 and 1940.
If you want to learn how the fate of Europe was decided (partly) in the ballrooms and boudoirs of Vienna in 1814 - 1815, read this book. How personalities like Tsar Alexander, Count Metternich, Hardenberg and others influenced the outcome of the congres and the way Europe was shaped after Napoleons defeat at Leipzig and specially after his escape from Elba and Waterloo.
A new reactionairy Europe evolved that tried to hide the revolutionary and later liberal gains of the French Revolution and Napoleon by stiffling all initiative for more freedom. In vain, as the revolutions of 1848 showed.
At Vienna they created big nations who would fight over Europe in the century to come: Prussia, Austria, and Russia, together with the UK and France.
Some of their descisions influenced history hundred years and more later; bringing the southern Netherlands to the (new) Kingdom of the Netherlands as a buffer against France. Later this became Belgium and it gave the Germans twice the opportunity to attack Francee through a neutral corridor in 1914 and 1940.
October 30, 2007
As my Paris 1919 review indicates, I prefer the chronological approach that Zamoyski takes here. Despite the overwhelming complexity of the diplomatic maneuvering, we are better able to understand why certain compromises were reached when we see the multitude of disputes being negotiated simultaneously.
That said, Zamoyski doesn't dig very deep here, preferring to go for "book report" history. This happened, then this happened, then this happened. I appreciate the attention given to the personal lives of the negotiators (when Tsar Alexander stole Metternich's mistress, there were obviously diplomatic consequences) but, for the most part, statecraft and bedroom activity are not very effectively integrated, and titillation seems to be the most common goal for the inclusion of some of the (admittedly amusing) anecdotes.
Better than Kissinger's book (really, his doctoral thesis) on the topic.
That said, Zamoyski doesn't dig very deep here, preferring to go for "book report" history. This happened, then this happened, then this happened. I appreciate the attention given to the personal lives of the negotiators (when Tsar Alexander stole Metternich's mistress, there were obviously diplomatic consequences) but, for the most part, statecraft and bedroom activity are not very effectively integrated, and titillation seems to be the most common goal for the inclusion of some of the (admittedly amusing) anecdotes.
Better than Kissinger's book (really, his doctoral thesis) on the topic.
June 21, 2022
I really had high hopes for this book. The Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath are a weak spot in my knowledge of European history, so this sounded like something that might help fill both gaps. Well, sort of. Honestly, I feel like this could have been about a third to a half shorter. Way too much time was spent talking about the various affairs that the participants were having, and yet I never felt like I got a good handle on any of their characters. (The women in particular.) And when I was finished -- which took time, it felt like a bit of a slog -- I didn't feel like I had a greater understanding of any of it. There was some information to be had, but I wasn't engaged.
December 18, 2007
"Perhaps the most striking aspect of the great charade known as the Congress of Vienna is the continuous interplay between the serious and the frivolous, an almost parasitical co-existence of activities which might appear to be mutually exclusive. The rattling of sabres and talk of blood mingled with the strains of the waltz and court gossip, and the most ridiculously trivial pursuits went hand in hand with impressive work."
October 24, 2009
An extremely readable work of history. I usually slog through history books, even when I'm interested in the subject matter, but I didn't have any problem reading 50-75 pages in the hour or so I read before bed. Zamoyski really brings the major participants to life. And after reading this, I find it a wonder the 19th century turned out as well as it did. (Yes, I realize pretty much every boundary and government established by the Congress of Vienna led to at least one revolution or war...)
October 18, 2022
Utterly compelling. An account of a real soap opera. Whenever you think that they don't make politicians like they used to anymore, remember Metternich missed crucial meetings because he was writing stalkery love letters to his mistress who had just dumped him to have a fling with the czar of Russia, and the whole of Vienna was sick of the heads of state acting like partying dicks by the end.
May 31, 2010
Read with Moscow 1812 to learn about the fall of Napoleon and the attempt at the Congress of Vienna to re-impose balance in Europe. Also, the Congress of Vienna sounded like one of top all-time parties.
January 18, 2012
Diplomatic and social history of the Coangress of Vienna (1814-15) which set up Europe following the fall of Napoleon. What a mess it was. But it demonstrates that diplomacy has always been about haggling and personal relationships. Rated PG for adult themes. 3.5/5
January 31, 2016
Extremely well-written and easy to read. An entertaining, but informative history of the diplomacy at the end of the Napoleonic wars. It is also an interesting challenge to Kissinger's thesis on the value of the Congress.
September 12, 2017
Disappointing and a hard read. Lacked any big picture view and made very firm judgements on far too many of the central characters without really being convincing... got the sense of revisionist history lurking here, but can't be sure as I don't know my German and Russian Napoleonics well enough
October 4, 2017
I am finally finished with this! It was very well researched and written, but I have to admit that I got a bit tired of it. Every possible detail of the Congress of Vienna was explored. Very thorough.
July 19, 2023
This book has raised the standards to what I consider a 5 star review. It is one of the best books I ever read. 569 pages, I was enamored and I could not put it down. I loved this book, and it deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews