What do you think?
Rate this book
Oxford History of Modern Europe
The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918
The fall of Metternich in the revolutions which swept Europe in 1848 heralded an era of unprecedented nationalism, which culminated in the collapse of the Habsburg, Romanov, and Hohenzollern dynasties at the of the First World War. In the intervening seventy years which are the subject of this book, the boundaries of Europe changed dramatically from those established at Vienna in 1815: Cavour championed the cause of Risorgimento in Italy; Bismarck brought about the unification of Germany; while the Great Powers scrambled for a place in the sun in Africa.
In this, one of his most enduring works, A.J.P. Taylor shows how the changing balance of power determined the course of European history, during this, the last age when Europe was the centre of world history. Throughout, Taylor's narrative is so vivid that the book is as much a work of literature as a contribution to historical scholarship.
688 pages, Paperback
First published December 4, 1954
25 people are currently reading
1569 people want to read
About the author
A.J.P. Taylor
114 books194 followersAlan John Percivale Taylor was an English historian of the 20th century and renowned academic who became well known to millions through his popular television lectures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
September 3, 2007
What possessed me to purchase this book? There I was, in Bonanza Books, my favorite book store in my parent's home town. I looked at the title and thought, "Maybe I am interested in the struggle for mastery in europe (1848-1918).
I'm not at all a fan of european diplomatic history. Though the material has a certain "Wes Anderson" (filmmaker of Rushmore and Royal Tennenbaum) flavor to it. Lots of triple ententes, diplomatic notes and, my favorite phrase in the whole book- "secret diplomacy". You see, through out the time period of this book, few of the European Powers resembled the modern democracy of free press and public opinion. In fact- of the major powers (UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Austria Hungary, Russia and sometimes Italy and Turkey), only England was arguably a "demoracy" for the entire period.
So basically, European Diplomacy during this period resembled a version of Risk- alll the players plotting with first one partner, then the other, with the idea of maintaining a balance, rather then provoking a final reckoning. Taylor- an english historian who is widely acclaimed for being one of the first "tv" personalities from the history profession (though not on you tube), was also one of the very first "revisionist" historians. "Mastery" was originally published in 1954. Talor is revisionist in an American sense because he doesn't adopt a principled/moral perspective on the events of history. Although Taylor is "anti-German" in a broad sense, it's a more sophisticated perspective on world affairs then most americans are used to reading at the college level (though I'd imagine post graduate students of european history are required to read taylor.
In my reading, the nuances of each event (Colorful sub chapters like "The Andrassy Note" or "The Leauge of the Three Emperors" abound) are subsumed by the broad flow of Taylor's broader "anti-great men" of history approach. Taylor takes the position that most deailng in international affairs are dealing with a lack of solid information about their oppoenents and partners. I can think of at least twent occasions where Taylor was "But Minister X was wrong about his assumption."
That there largely was no war amongst the so-called Great Powers between the Crimean war of the 1850s and World War I of 1914 is largely ascribed by Taylor to the brilliance of Bismarck. Bismarck's genius is that he subscribed to a world view where Germany DID NOT dominate all of Europe. After he leave the scene, the German/Prussian leadership is gradually won over to the "German mastery over Europe." "German Nationalism" serves as an eerie prologue to events that this book does not cover, but the time period in Mastery is just as close to Napoleon's French Empire- an era also not covered in this book.
I'm not at all a fan of european diplomatic history. Though the material has a certain "Wes Anderson" (filmmaker of Rushmore and Royal Tennenbaum) flavor to it. Lots of triple ententes, diplomatic notes and, my favorite phrase in the whole book- "secret diplomacy". You see, through out the time period of this book, few of the European Powers resembled the modern democracy of free press and public opinion. In fact- of the major powers (UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Austria Hungary, Russia and sometimes Italy and Turkey), only England was arguably a "demoracy" for the entire period.
So basically, European Diplomacy during this period resembled a version of Risk- alll the players plotting with first one partner, then the other, with the idea of maintaining a balance, rather then provoking a final reckoning. Taylor- an english historian who is widely acclaimed for being one of the first "tv" personalities from the history profession (though not on you tube), was also one of the very first "revisionist" historians. "Mastery" was originally published in 1954. Talor is revisionist in an American sense because he doesn't adopt a principled/moral perspective on the events of history. Although Taylor is "anti-German" in a broad sense, it's a more sophisticated perspective on world affairs then most americans are used to reading at the college level (though I'd imagine post graduate students of european history are required to read taylor.
In my reading, the nuances of each event (Colorful sub chapters like "The Andrassy Note" or "The Leauge of the Three Emperors" abound) are subsumed by the broad flow of Taylor's broader "anti-great men" of history approach. Taylor takes the position that most deailng in international affairs are dealing with a lack of solid information about their oppoenents and partners. I can think of at least twent occasions where Taylor was "But Minister X was wrong about his assumption."
That there largely was no war amongst the so-called Great Powers between the Crimean war of the 1850s and World War I of 1914 is largely ascribed by Taylor to the brilliance of Bismarck. Bismarck's genius is that he subscribed to a world view where Germany DID NOT dominate all of Europe. After he leave the scene, the German/Prussian leadership is gradually won over to the "German mastery over Europe." "German Nationalism" serves as an eerie prologue to events that this book does not cover, but the time period in Mastery is just as close to Napoleon's French Empire- an era also not covered in this book.
June 24, 2017
I just couldn't do it. I clearly tried reading both this and his history of England more than once since I found bookmarks in them. I read collections of his essays without a problem. So why can't I make it through these? Partly because he makes statements about situations without explanation. In general, I just couldn't follow. I like to consider myself less ignorant about history than many Americans (if more ignorant than many non-Americans). But maybe I'm wrong.
April 27, 2013
الكتاب يوضح دهاليز قيام التحالفات بين الدول و مدى تأثيرها مصائر الأمم فى ذلك الوقت
January 21, 2013
A panoramic view of European history from the revolutions of 1848 to the end of the First World Power, when Europe "ceased to be the centre of the world". Though Taylor can be extremely dense, (if I had a nickel for every semi-colon...), he delves into every era with a tenacious insight that leaves you simultaneously gasping for air upon finishing and filled with a profound knowledge of the aims and motives of the great powers and their leaders alike.
I especially liked his treatment of the Crimean war and its consequences.
I especially liked his treatment of the Crimean war and its consequences.
February 18, 2022
Amazon review
Struggle for Mastery in Europe
What A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe suffers from in being nearly fifty years old, it more than makes up for in style. It is a riveting book that is smattered with wit and an author's thorough knowledge of his subject.
Alternate titles might have been The Struggle to Prevent the Mastery of Europe, or the Decline and Fall of the Balance of Power.
Taylor's unyielding faith in diplomacy reflects a Cold War notion that any political problem can be solved by maintaining a diplomatic balance. He deftly navigates the Byzantine web of diplomatic intrigue to show how negotiations, not war, ultimately resolves crises. His whig interpretations are at times blatant. Conservative Russia and Prussia are often "humiliated" and "old fashioned" while liberal France fell victim to its own "ingenuity" or suffered "shattered prestige."
Not all events are treated equal. The 1867 Anschloss or the 1894 Dreyfus Affair receive practically no attention, while obscure diplomatic conventions receive detailed analysis. Great leaders like Napoleon III or Bismarck receive Taylor's praise while British statesmen of lesser stature receive criticism. Taylor is also anti-imperial, stating that colonies are a sign of weakness (though he later seems to suggest the opposite).
His treatment of the coming of World War One is perhaps his greatest weakness, or perhaps this is where the book is most dated. He seems to be somewhat surprised that war erupted in the face of diplomatic failure. He fails to see that many at the time lost faith in diplomacy and allowed the war to happen.
In the end, though, this is a fine work. Taylor interjects personal philosophies throughout the book.
"Men learn from their mistakes how to make new ones" (p. 111)
"Once men imagine a danger they soon turn it into a reality" (p. 450)
"A historian should never deal in speculations about what did not happen" (p. 513)
are but a few examples.
(This last is a personal favorite as it flies in the face of alternative history.)
Clever recto page headings and use of dates keep the reader aware of what is happening, and Taylor is a master of the semi colon. All in all this remains a very informative work.
J. Lindner
---
A masterpiece
This is A.J.P. Taylor's masterpiece of history. Taylor is an exquisite writer, with a unique style that cannot resist the irony and contradictions inherent in the actual fabric of European diplomacy.
This sprawling tale of folly and pretension is informed by Taylor's exhaustive reading of the official foreign affairs correspondence of the respective nations involved, as well as his own mastery of modern European history. His prose is consistently edged with wit on the verge of sarcasm, always keen to the absurd roots of tragedy.
For Taylor there are no sacred cows: every class, every institution, every political party, even cynicism itself, fumbles in the dark, toiling under the weight of its illusions and contradictions.
One does not emerge from this book with an enhanced respect for statesmen, generals or revolutionaries. This is one of the few history books I plan on reading at least twice.
Bill Perez
---
A great book in order to understand Europe's history
A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe is the book to start reading about those 70 crucial years in Europe's history.
The book begins with the Revolutions of 1845, that's why it would be a good thing to have some knowledge regarding the Napoleonic Wars and its outcome (Treaty of Metternich).
Taylor analyses the out coming system of the Balance of Power that governed European diplomacy until War World I. According to this system, the five great powers (England, Prussia, Austria, Russia and the defeated France) would balance each others force, avoiding the out come of war.
The system worked pretty well until the fall of Bismarck. That is because Bismarck, as his successor once said, knew how to "play with three balls at the same time". He could keep Russia and Austria tied to Germany at the same time. Thus, France was checked. Nevertheless, when Germany didn't renewed its treaty with Russia the obvious move was Russia's alliance with France.
It could be said that by 1885 the outcome of a Great War was a matter just of time. The system of alliances so well designed by Metternich and so well understood and curried out by Bismarck was at the same time the cause of War World I. Without a great politician as Bismarck nobody could make Metternich's system work.
All through his book, Taylor explains what I have just summarized in a really better way. I highly recommend the lecture of this great book.
Alejandro Massot
---
Het set out to write a history of European diplomacy ang did indeed just that, and how.
This is book about the European diplomacy between 1948 and 1918 of Taylor who by many is regarded as one of the finest historians of the 20th Century.
You could say that the book is actually discussing how the Concert of Europe (set up after the Defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815) came to an end, how international relations were changing and with that the alliances.
In this, you can see how slowly the alliances came into existence that eventually lived through till the First World War. But also how Germany feared being overran by either Russia, backed financially by France or Great Britain. How Great Britain feared of losing his dominant position in the world.
That gives a pretty paranoid like kind of impression on how separate nations actioned and reasoned, and with that one can clearly understand how the First World War turned out to such disaster, and perhaps was a war that could have been avoided as all this other conflicts that were avoided.
Along the way Taylor disuses a dazzling amount of events and people, most important of all of course Bismarck, but also the events of 1848, the Crimean War, the Japanese Russian War, the Balkan Crisis and the founding of several nation states, as the unification of Italy and Germany and fall of others, as the Ottoman Empire.
But there is surprisingly less about the Franco-Prussian War, while by now, many regard this war as a pivotal moment in modern history and a war that eventually set the stage for both World Wars.
D. Schotman
Struggle for Mastery in Europe
What A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe suffers from in being nearly fifty years old, it more than makes up for in style. It is a riveting book that is smattered with wit and an author's thorough knowledge of his subject.
Alternate titles might have been The Struggle to Prevent the Mastery of Europe, or the Decline and Fall of the Balance of Power.
Taylor's unyielding faith in diplomacy reflects a Cold War notion that any political problem can be solved by maintaining a diplomatic balance. He deftly navigates the Byzantine web of diplomatic intrigue to show how negotiations, not war, ultimately resolves crises. His whig interpretations are at times blatant. Conservative Russia and Prussia are often "humiliated" and "old fashioned" while liberal France fell victim to its own "ingenuity" or suffered "shattered prestige."
Not all events are treated equal. The 1867 Anschloss or the 1894 Dreyfus Affair receive practically no attention, while obscure diplomatic conventions receive detailed analysis. Great leaders like Napoleon III or Bismarck receive Taylor's praise while British statesmen of lesser stature receive criticism. Taylor is also anti-imperial, stating that colonies are a sign of weakness (though he later seems to suggest the opposite).
His treatment of the coming of World War One is perhaps his greatest weakness, or perhaps this is where the book is most dated. He seems to be somewhat surprised that war erupted in the face of diplomatic failure. He fails to see that many at the time lost faith in diplomacy and allowed the war to happen.
In the end, though, this is a fine work. Taylor interjects personal philosophies throughout the book.
"Men learn from their mistakes how to make new ones" (p. 111)
"Once men imagine a danger they soon turn it into a reality" (p. 450)
"A historian should never deal in speculations about what did not happen" (p. 513)
are but a few examples.
(This last is a personal favorite as it flies in the face of alternative history.)
Clever recto page headings and use of dates keep the reader aware of what is happening, and Taylor is a master of the semi colon. All in all this remains a very informative work.
J. Lindner
---
A masterpiece
This is A.J.P. Taylor's masterpiece of history. Taylor is an exquisite writer, with a unique style that cannot resist the irony and contradictions inherent in the actual fabric of European diplomacy.
This sprawling tale of folly and pretension is informed by Taylor's exhaustive reading of the official foreign affairs correspondence of the respective nations involved, as well as his own mastery of modern European history. His prose is consistently edged with wit on the verge of sarcasm, always keen to the absurd roots of tragedy.
For Taylor there are no sacred cows: every class, every institution, every political party, even cynicism itself, fumbles in the dark, toiling under the weight of its illusions and contradictions.
One does not emerge from this book with an enhanced respect for statesmen, generals or revolutionaries. This is one of the few history books I plan on reading at least twice.
Bill Perez
---
A great book in order to understand Europe's history
A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe is the book to start reading about those 70 crucial years in Europe's history.
The book begins with the Revolutions of 1845, that's why it would be a good thing to have some knowledge regarding the Napoleonic Wars and its outcome (Treaty of Metternich).
Taylor analyses the out coming system of the Balance of Power that governed European diplomacy until War World I. According to this system, the five great powers (England, Prussia, Austria, Russia and the defeated France) would balance each others force, avoiding the out come of war.
The system worked pretty well until the fall of Bismarck. That is because Bismarck, as his successor once said, knew how to "play with three balls at the same time". He could keep Russia and Austria tied to Germany at the same time. Thus, France was checked. Nevertheless, when Germany didn't renewed its treaty with Russia the obvious move was Russia's alliance with France.
It could be said that by 1885 the outcome of a Great War was a matter just of time. The system of alliances so well designed by Metternich and so well understood and curried out by Bismarck was at the same time the cause of War World I. Without a great politician as Bismarck nobody could make Metternich's system work.
All through his book, Taylor explains what I have just summarized in a really better way. I highly recommend the lecture of this great book.
Alejandro Massot
---
Het set out to write a history of European diplomacy ang did indeed just that, and how.
This is book about the European diplomacy between 1948 and 1918 of Taylor who by many is regarded as one of the finest historians of the 20th Century.
You could say that the book is actually discussing how the Concert of Europe (set up after the Defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815) came to an end, how international relations were changing and with that the alliances.
In this, you can see how slowly the alliances came into existence that eventually lived through till the First World War. But also how Germany feared being overran by either Russia, backed financially by France or Great Britain. How Great Britain feared of losing his dominant position in the world.
That gives a pretty paranoid like kind of impression on how separate nations actioned and reasoned, and with that one can clearly understand how the First World War turned out to such disaster, and perhaps was a war that could have been avoided as all this other conflicts that were avoided.
Along the way Taylor disuses a dazzling amount of events and people, most important of all of course Bismarck, but also the events of 1848, the Crimean War, the Japanese Russian War, the Balkan Crisis and the founding of several nation states, as the unification of Italy and Germany and fall of others, as the Ottoman Empire.
But there is surprisingly less about the Franco-Prussian War, while by now, many regard this war as a pivotal moment in modern history and a war that eventually set the stage for both World Wars.
D. Schotman
September 18, 2017
Crisp, chronological narrative of European diplomacy and warfare between fall of Metternich and the end of World War I. Engagingly written, and much more than a list of dates and events, with insightful analysis sprinkled throughout. (My favorite: one and only one battle during this timeframe changed the course of history; what was it?)
Students looking for profound causes and effects might be disappointed; those who want wide knowledge of the balance of power age will find it a valuable resource and an entertaining read.
Students looking for profound causes and effects might be disappointed; those who want wide knowledge of the balance of power age will find it a valuable resource and an entertaining read.
September 7, 2015
I can hardly complain. A battered copy for few cents in a 2nd hand book shop but it was along haul. Diplomatic history written for those studying diplomacy? I have read plenty of dry and dense history and some I thought was very good indeed but this just seemed to be page after page of dense stream of consciousness prose. I learnt a bit hence 2 stars but I have one more by the author and may give it a while before I get into it.
April 9, 2018
كتاب لا يناسب القارئ العادي ...من يريد الإستمتاع دون ملل..لكنه مرجع رائع لمن يهوي الدراسات و البحث في الدبلوماسية الأوروبية
July 23, 2018
I powered through this for my course over the last days (skipping the sections that I already read about in another book) and I have to say, I am happy to have finished this monstrosity full of details I will not remember anyways. This is the one book I am ditching as soon as the course is over! The other book I read about this topic wasn't nearly as detailed but still gave me a good overview about what happened at that time.
So this review is not so much about the content (because it is an interesting topic and period in European history and it gets the +1 star for that), but about how the content was presented. And since I only need it for two weeks, I could have skipped that one without feeling bad.
So this review is not so much about the content (because it is an interesting topic and period in European history and it gets the +1 star for that), but about how the content was presented. And since I only need it for two weeks, I could have skipped that one without feeling bad.
July 23, 2020
ما من حرب من الحروب التي دارت بين القوى العظمى إلا حرباً بدأت بوصفها حرباً وقائية ، لا حرب اجتياح وغزو . حققت حرب القرم مثلاً نجاحاً معقولاً في تحقيق اغراضها ، اما الحرب العالمية الاولى فلم تجلب سوى الكوارث على مشعلي نارها . قد يكون هذا برهاناً على خطأ اطلاق الحروب الوقائية ، ربما ليس اطلاقها خطأ الا اذا تم دون التأكد يقيناً من النجاح .
March 24, 2019
A sometimes tedious but always fascinating look at European diplomacy from 1848-1918.
Generally, diplomacy in the latter 19th century is treated as a one-way drive to the alliances that made the First World War "inevitable". The reality is much more labyrinthine. Taking a very human look at the diplomatists of the major European powers, this work details the deals and double deals, plans and non-plans of the leaders that set the stage for the war. Sometimes humorous, sometimes tragic, but always interesting.
This work assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader. You should know the domestic and colonial history of the major European powers of the period as well as the main players because the author dives in and is relentless in his pace. There is no time for set up of broader context. Events will be mentioned and national and sociological trends will be given shoutouts only when they touch upon the diplomatic events of the day. This book is about diplomatic history first, last, and only.
Generally, diplomacy in the latter 19th century is treated as a one-way drive to the alliances that made the First World War "inevitable". The reality is much more labyrinthine. Taking a very human look at the diplomatists of the major European powers, this work details the deals and double deals, plans and non-plans of the leaders that set the stage for the war. Sometimes humorous, sometimes tragic, but always interesting.
This work assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader. You should know the domestic and colonial history of the major European powers of the period as well as the main players because the author dives in and is relentless in his pace. There is no time for set up of broader context. Events will be mentioned and national and sociological trends will be given shoutouts only when they touch upon the diplomatic events of the day. This book is about diplomatic history first, last, and only.
June 3, 2025
A very in-depth diplomatic history of the European powers during the period. This is almost exclusively a diplomatic history - military and economic factors are mentioned more to set the stage rather than explored in detail. An existing understanding of major people & events is helpful as the author does not spend much time contextualizing the broad strokes. Highly recommend for anyone interested in Great Power politics.
December 11, 2014
A dense but fascinating account of the intricacies of European diplomacy from the 1848 revolutions, which unhinged the system established at Vienna by Metternich, to the end of the Great War, in which, as Taylor argued, Europe ceased to be entirely the master of its own affairs, becoming a battleground between liberalism and communism. If you're looking for a good international political history of this era, it is hard to go wrong with Taylor. All of the great developments of the era are covered at length, as are the prime movers and shakers: the adventurism of Napoleon III, the Crimean War, the unification of Italy and Germany, the decay of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, Bismarck's impossibly complex system of alliances, and the gradual awakening of a tide of nationalism and mass politics that swept policymakers along in its wake. The book closes with a long and impressive account of the communications between the great powers behind the scenes of the carnage of the Great War. As other reviewers have said, nobody could do diplomatic history as well as A.J.P. Taylor. It is considered a classic with good reason.
August 9, 2025
كتاب ضحم صاد من المركز الثقافي العربي يؤرخ فيه المؤرخ (آلان جون بيرسيفال تايلور (25 مارس 1906 - 7 سبتمبر 1990) وهو مؤرخًا إنجليزيًا متخصصًا في الدبلوماسية الأوروبية في القرنين التاسع عشر والعشرين. عمل صحفيًا ومذيعًا، واشتهر بين الملايين من خلال محاضراته التلفزيونية. وقد دفعه إتقانه الأكاديمي وشعبيته الجماهيرية إلى وصفه المؤرخ ريتشارد أوفري بأنه "ماكولي عصرنا"، وفي استطلاع رأي أجرته مجلة "هيستوري توداي" عام 2011، حاز على لقب رابع أهم مؤرخ في الستين عامًا الماضية)، لتاريخ اوروبا من عام 1848م وهو عام يسمى في التاريخ الاوروبي بربيع الشعوب أو الثورات الأوروبية عام 1848 تعرف أيضاً في بعض البلدان باسم ربيع الأمم وربيع الشعوب وعام الثورة، كانت سلسلة من الاضطرابات السياسية في جميع أنحاء القارة الأوروبية. وعدت من أكثر الموجات الثورية انتشارا في تاريخ أوروبا.
كانت الثورات ذات طابع ديمقراطي في الأساس، بهدف إزالة الهياكل الإقطاعية القديمة وخلق دول وطنية مستقلة. بدأت الموجة الثورية بالثورة الفرنسية في فبراير، سرعان ما امتدت إلى بقية أوروبا. وقد تأثرت أكثر من 50 دولة بتلك الموجة، ولكن لم يكن هناك أي تنسيق أو تعاون بين ثوريي تلك الدول. ووفقا لإيفانز وفون ستراندمان (2000) فإن من بين العوامل الرئيسية المساهمة في انتشار تلك الموجة هي الشعور العام بعدم الرضا على القيادة السياسية، والمطالبة بزيادة المشاركة في الحكومة والديمقراطية، وحرية الصحافة، بالإضافة إلى مطالب الطبقة العاملة، وازدياد النزعة القومية، وإعادة تشكيل قطعات الجيوش الحكومية القائمة ،وكانت الانتفاضات تقودها تحالفات مختصة من الإصلاحيين والطبقات الوسطى والعمال الذين لم يجتمعوا معا منذ زمن. حيث قتل عشرات الآلاف من البشر وهجر العديد منهم. ولكن بالمحصلة النهائية أتت إصلاحات هامة ودائمة، مثل إلغاء القنانة في النمسا-المجر، ونهاية الملكية المطلقة في الدنمارك، وإدخال الديمقراطية البرلمانية في هولندا. أما الثورات الأكثر أهمية فكانت في فرنسا وهولندا والدويلات التي شكلت الإمبراطورية الألمانية أواخر القرن 19 وأوائل القرن 20 وإيطاليا والإمبراطورية النمساوية، حتى عام ناهية الحرب العالمية الاولى 1918م.
كتاب قيم ومهم ويشرح فينقاطه الكثيرة مشكلات لازالت تعاني منها اوروبا حتى وقتنا هذا.
واود ان اضيف ان هذا الكتاب يعد مرجعا مهما لك ولمكتبتك كقارئ يمكنك الرجوع إليه من وقت الى آخر.
كانت الثورات ذات طابع ديمقراطي في الأساس، بهدف إزالة الهياكل الإقطاعية القديمة وخلق دول وطنية مستقلة. بدأت الموجة الثورية بالثورة الفرنسية في فبراير، سرعان ما امتدت إلى بقية أوروبا. وقد تأثرت أكثر من 50 دولة بتلك الموجة، ولكن لم يكن هناك أي تنسيق أو تعاون بين ثوريي تلك الدول. ووفقا لإيفانز وفون ستراندمان (2000) فإن من بين العوامل الرئيسية المساهمة في انتشار تلك الموجة هي الشعور العام بعدم الرضا على القيادة السياسية، والمطالبة بزيادة المشاركة في الحكومة والديمقراطية، وحرية الصحافة، بالإضافة إلى مطالب الطبقة العاملة، وازدياد النزعة القومية، وإعادة تشكيل قطعات الجيوش الحكومية القائمة ،وكانت الانتفاضات تقودها تحالفات مختصة من الإصلاحيين والطبقات الوسطى والعمال الذين لم يجتمعوا معا منذ زمن. حيث قتل عشرات الآلاف من البشر وهجر العديد منهم. ولكن بالمحصلة النهائية أتت إصلاحات هامة ودائمة، مثل إلغاء القنانة في النمسا-المجر، ونهاية الملكية المطلقة في الدنمارك، وإدخال الديمقراطية البرلمانية في هولندا. أما الثورات الأكثر أهمية فكانت في فرنسا وهولندا والدويلات التي شكلت الإمبراطورية الألمانية أواخر القرن 19 وأوائل القرن 20 وإيطاليا والإمبراطورية النمساوية، حتى عام ناهية الحرب العالمية الاولى 1918م.
كتاب قيم ومهم ويشرح فينقاطه الكثيرة مشكلات لازالت تعاني منها اوروبا حتى وقتنا هذا.
واود ان اضيف ان هذا الكتاب يعد مرجعا مهما لك ولمكتبتك كقارئ يمكنك الرجوع إليه من وقت الى آخر.
June 1, 2025
Fascinating to read this book after having read a fair bit recently on modern historiography, theories of history, and postmodern approaches to the writing of history. This is old fashioned narrative history written by one of the masters of the genre. AJP Taylor was of course a serious historian, but with a knack for writing serious history that was readable and readily digested by a non-specialist audience. This book is no different as a history of international diplomacy in Europe in the 70 years leading up to the first world war. Thoughtful and comprehensive as it is, it is definitely showing its age. It is euro-centred, and tells a formal narrative built around the decisions of white men. Although Taylor largely dismisses economic factors as driving forces, and despite the old fashioned nature of his starting point, he is very interesting on the grand strategic choices made by governments and foreign ministries. This means that while there is no doubt much more to be said from other perspectives, this book remains worth reading on its own terms and for bringing a much more clear sighted and less personality driven perspective on international relations during the later nineteenth century and the run up to the first world war.
August 29, 2025
A brilliant analysis on the long and winding road to European mass slaughter by Britain's foremost historian. Europe came together after 1848 through a synthesis of reaction, crushing the bodies and then the spirit of the 1848 continental revolutions, the forging of new nations, Germany and Italy, out of polyglot conglomerates, and imperialism, from Istanbul to Cairo, meeting its end on the trenches, 1914-1918. The giants are all here, Metternich, Castleragh, Bismark, Rhodes, De Cavour, Disraeli and Gladstone, but THE STRUGGLE FOR MASTERY takes us behind the curtains of their machinations. Taylor, the Peck's Bad Boy of British historians, handles this complex subject with masterful insight and vivid prose. This volume is not a substitute but a companion to Eric Hobsbawn's THE AGE OF CAPITAL and THE AGE OF EMPIRE. Both authors are indispensable for the serious student of history, and in this case tragedy. Sixty-thousand Britons lost their lives on the first day of the Battle Ypres in a war fought to make their rulers masters of a continent. Why?
April 6, 2020
Almost a year by year documenting of Europe's petty (as viewed by someone living over 150 years out) bickering over everything. That might not sound like it but I found it to be an incredibly helpful and great book. It is easy to fall into the trap of "knowing what is coming" but of course the actors at the time did not. The kings thought they would stick around. Russia thought it was strong. Britain just wanted to be free to exploit in peace.
The book shows the shift from Metternich and his contemporaries' fears, to Bismark and finally to full on Kaiser Wilhelm. Japan is treated with respect as a rising power. I am sure there are other takes to read (and I look forward to that) but this book helps piece together all the bits I've read into something resembling coherence.
It took me forever to read and if you want a direct run up to WWI only I would suggest other books but other than that I can only recommend this at the highest level.
The book shows the shift from Metternich and his contemporaries' fears, to Bismark and finally to full on Kaiser Wilhelm. Japan is treated with respect as a rising power. I am sure there are other takes to read (and I look forward to that) but this book helps piece together all the bits I've read into something resembling coherence.
It took me forever to read and if you want a direct run up to WWI only I would suggest other books but other than that I can only recommend this at the highest level.
April 12, 2023
The book does a good job of describing political events of the Major Powers in Europe during this time period (other aspects of the time period are not covered). However, it would be nice to know more about the players involved. Instead, names drop in and out of the story, and you're left wondering where they came from and where they went; it is assumed you know who these people were.
July 28, 2021
1848 was the year when Germany reached a turning point, and failed to turn.
AJP Taylor's masterful work details how the Kingdom of Prussia rose to power and grew to become a unified Germany. In the process it destroyed the Old Order in Europe.
An excellent book for serious historians
AJP Taylor's masterful work details how the Kingdom of Prussia rose to power and grew to become a unified Germany. In the process it destroyed the Old Order in Europe.
An excellent book for serious historians
August 9, 2017
Monumental account of the diplomacy between the great powers of Europe in this period. Taylor shows a great knowledge and the book is fluid despite of the abuse of semicolons throughout
June 14, 2020
Informative, but a very tedious read. It assumes a familiarity with the plot and dramatis personae on part of the reader. A compact volume given its scope, complexity and the level of details.
October 16, 2022
“No war is inevitable until it breaks out.”
November 4, 2025
A very heavy read, but it is fantastically enlightening. Read it if you want to understand the past, the present and the future.
December 25, 2025
Kinda snoozefest
September 24, 2025
It will take me awhile to finish this book...
But, I want to get some impressions down. This is Taylor at his best; his actual coverage of campaigns tend to be too brisk with broad strokes and snappy conclusions, as though the reader is merely there to pick snacks off a tray.
But, In Mastery, he's in his element, juggling the rivalry of a half dozen nations, with their interests, leaders, ministers, and generals. The 1848-1918 period was maybe the most changeable seventy years in Europe's modern history.
Taylor is adept at giving a blow-by-blow of what is, in effect, a gigantic and lethal game of diplomacy, politics, and war. We see how easily nations stumble or are propelled along the road to confrontation; and, equally, how quickly they can divert and even reverse their interests on a convenient siding, so to speak .
He's correct that this was the last era in which a handful of individuals could direct an entire country's policy in cabinet meetings, in face-to-face diplomacy, or merely just on a whim. The danger of this style of government is obvious. For every Bismarck weaving his web of misdirection, brinkmansship and fait accomplis, there's a stable of Kaiser Wilhelms eager to muck it all up.
I think the first three things that many students of history conjure up when contemplating World War I are: happy soldiers in funny hats thinking they'll be home "before the leaves fall," the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Kaiser Wilhelm. Fortunately, we have the benefit of a century-plus of scholarship to mull over the destruction of an era of general optimism and progress by considering the question of could World War I have been avoided.
I certainly don't expect that Taylor will have a neatly wrapped-up answer for me--he'll have an assortment of answers, and then wrench them away at the last minute. This is why I like this level of historical inquiry; you know what's coming, but probably not why, maybe not even how. The only thing that's settled is the when.
It seems that Taylor, in exploring this maze that led to the Great War, has trained us to both to be skeptical of answers for history's tragedies, and to accept that, once embarked on this path, to ponder the infinite number of clues lurking in plain view. Or, in Lloyd George's apt phrase, a "leap in the dark."
I can't step back from handling the fuse--to switch metaphors to a different book on the subject--that both attracts us like a beacon, and does its work of exploding into World War, obliterating the recognition of our discovery.
This is a deceptively tough read. He writes so skillfully that I feel he's sitting in the chair opposite me, a favored uncle, telling me a story I've heard many times, but haven't really understood. It's as though he's there at the Congress of Berlin, at Algecires, and Olmutz. Maybe all of those sovereigns and their minions saved notes for him.
So, he's easily comprehended, but writing in such a specialized language, which is at once familiar yet daunting, that mere ability to comprehend is like knowing that you're in a strange land without realizing it until you've passed the point of no return.
In short, how can so many things be in play simultaneously? The "near-East", Egypt, the Confederation of the Rhine, Gladstone and Disraeli , always, the "'Revolution'", or the ghost of it. He might've just as well have written a book on that elusive thing, the "Revolution."
In some readings, I feel that I'm circling back on the same passage, the same material, the same decision. I think, Taylor's roundabout style aside, is just his point . Those who influence and make history, are rarely given the gift of transcendence in their time; their careers go around, and coming back to a previous mindset, only slightly readjust.
One has to admire Bismarck. The ultimate politician, that is, a salesman with rank and stature, he seems to have definitely been an abrasive personally, but since he wasn't performing public relations, rather the relations of a nation, he had to appear larger-than-life.
He's like the guy who indulgently, goes on a camping trip with a bunch of people he knows from work. These other guys (Napoleon III, Wilhelm II types) talk a good game, but can't keep with Bismarck. They get lost, frustrated, and belligerent; they fight. Bismarck keeps the group within bounds most of the time. But then he moves on.
So it seems, that, just as the colonial rivalry, a naval rivalry, renewed tension in the Balkans, disputes in Asia, the rise of the United States and Japan, and a curtain of alliances, Europe was left with Kaiser Wilhelm occupying a throne without the adjustments necessary to make it comfortable ....
..
But, I want to get some impressions down. This is Taylor at his best; his actual coverage of campaigns tend to be too brisk with broad strokes and snappy conclusions, as though the reader is merely there to pick snacks off a tray.
But, In Mastery, he's in his element, juggling the rivalry of a half dozen nations, with their interests, leaders, ministers, and generals. The 1848-1918 period was maybe the most changeable seventy years in Europe's modern history.
Taylor is adept at giving a blow-by-blow of what is, in effect, a gigantic and lethal game of diplomacy, politics, and war. We see how easily nations stumble or are propelled along the road to confrontation; and, equally, how quickly they can divert and even reverse their interests on a convenient siding, so to speak .
He's correct that this was the last era in which a handful of individuals could direct an entire country's policy in cabinet meetings, in face-to-face diplomacy, or merely just on a whim. The danger of this style of government is obvious. For every Bismarck weaving his web of misdirection, brinkmansship and fait accomplis, there's a stable of Kaiser Wilhelms eager to muck it all up.
I think the first three things that many students of history conjure up when contemplating World War I are: happy soldiers in funny hats thinking they'll be home "before the leaves fall," the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Kaiser Wilhelm. Fortunately, we have the benefit of a century-plus of scholarship to mull over the destruction of an era of general optimism and progress by considering the question of could World War I have been avoided.
I certainly don't expect that Taylor will have a neatly wrapped-up answer for me--he'll have an assortment of answers, and then wrench them away at the last minute. This is why I like this level of historical inquiry; you know what's coming, but probably not why, maybe not even how. The only thing that's settled is the when.
It seems that Taylor, in exploring this maze that led to the Great War, has trained us to both to be skeptical of answers for history's tragedies, and to accept that, once embarked on this path, to ponder the infinite number of clues lurking in plain view. Or, in Lloyd George's apt phrase, a "leap in the dark."
I can't step back from handling the fuse--to switch metaphors to a different book on the subject--that both attracts us like a beacon, and does its work of exploding into World War, obliterating the recognition of our discovery.
This is a deceptively tough read. He writes so skillfully that I feel he's sitting in the chair opposite me, a favored uncle, telling me a story I've heard many times, but haven't really understood. It's as though he's there at the Congress of Berlin, at Algecires, and Olmutz. Maybe all of those sovereigns and their minions saved notes for him.
So, he's easily comprehended, but writing in such a specialized language, which is at once familiar yet daunting, that mere ability to comprehend is like knowing that you're in a strange land without realizing it until you've passed the point of no return.
In short, how can so many things be in play simultaneously? The "near-East", Egypt, the Confederation of the Rhine, Gladstone and Disraeli , always, the "'Revolution'", or the ghost of it. He might've just as well have written a book on that elusive thing, the "Revolution."
In some readings, I feel that I'm circling back on the same passage, the same material, the same decision. I think, Taylor's roundabout style aside, is just his point . Those who influence and make history, are rarely given the gift of transcendence in their time; their careers go around, and coming back to a previous mindset, only slightly readjust.
One has to admire Bismarck. The ultimate politician, that is, a salesman with rank and stature, he seems to have definitely been an abrasive personally, but since he wasn't performing public relations, rather the relations of a nation, he had to appear larger-than-life.
He's like the guy who indulgently, goes on a camping trip with a bunch of people he knows from work. These other guys (Napoleon III, Wilhelm II types) talk a good game, but can't keep with Bismarck. They get lost, frustrated, and belligerent; they fight. Bismarck keeps the group within bounds most of the time. But then he moves on.
So it seems, that, just as the colonial rivalry, a naval rivalry, renewed tension in the Balkans, disputes in Asia, the rise of the United States and Japan, and a curtain of alliances, Europe was left with Kaiser Wilhelm occupying a throne without the adjustments necessary to make it comfortable ....
..
October 3, 2025
The style of writing owes itself to a different century. To a modern reader, this is dense, detail-oriented writing. Each sentence has assertive statements with multiple characters and foreign offices. All are intriguing against eachother. I recommend this for an understanding of modern Europe, diplomacy, and Great Power politics. It’s an excellent, if niche, political history. One thing that bothered me was that his research ebbed as he got closer to the Great War. I see a much less diverse set of primary and secondary sources. So you can kind of assume missing details and sources post-1900 before many national archives opened up their records from that period. But from 1848 to 1898, he still provides a very readable account of European diplomatic and foreign policy history. I highly recommend it to be read if you enjoy geopolitics and diplomatic history.
March 26, 2023
"The Struggle for Mastery of Europe" is a book by British historian A.J.P. Taylor, first published in 1954. The book is a detailed examination of the political and military struggles that took place in Europe during the period from 1848 to 1918.
Taylor argues that this period was marked by a struggle for mastery and dominance between the major European powers, particularly Germany, France, and Britain. He suggests that the underlying causes of these conflicts were economic and political in nature, and that they were ultimately driven by a desire for power and influence.
Taylor also critiques the traditional view that Germany was primarily responsible for the outbreak of World War I, suggesting instead that the responsibility was shared by all the major powers. He argues that the war was the result of a complex web of factors, including nationalism, imperialism, and alliances.
Overall, "The Struggle for Mastery of Europe" is an important contribution to the study of European history and international relations. The book has been widely read by scholars and policymakers, and has contributed to ongoing debates about the causes and consequences of the major conflicts of the 20th century.
GPT
Taylor argues that this period was marked by a struggle for mastery and dominance between the major European powers, particularly Germany, France, and Britain. He suggests that the underlying causes of these conflicts were economic and political in nature, and that they were ultimately driven by a desire for power and influence.
Taylor also critiques the traditional view that Germany was primarily responsible for the outbreak of World War I, suggesting instead that the responsibility was shared by all the major powers. He argues that the war was the result of a complex web of factors, including nationalism, imperialism, and alliances.
Overall, "The Struggle for Mastery of Europe" is an important contribution to the study of European history and international relations. The book has been widely read by scholars and policymakers, and has contributed to ongoing debates about the causes and consequences of the major conflicts of the 20th century.
GPT
March 17, 2010
It's hard to imagine a better one-stop-shop for all you might want to know about this period. While I like to use this as a reference for particular things, I found I could not read it cover to cover. It is so jam packed that I felt it lost any sense of narrative.
October 30, 2016
An extremely thorough look at international diplomacy during the height of the European balance of power. The author has a dry style that was very amusing to me. But beware that this is a history of international relations only - anything else is only mentioned in passing, if at all.
Read
September 9, 2008Definitive - but also intensely dry and academic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews