The Distribution and Assertion of Power by European States, 1815-1870

Power being subjective to individuals and groups, the term invokes the thought of where, in the distribution of power, one lays as compared to others. As such when discussing the idea of a “balance of powers” it is important to acknowledge that balance is in of itself also subjective, as each ‘power’ has their own idea with which what substantiates balance. A weaker power would propose a disaggregation of a greater power’s capabilities (militaristic, economic, or political), while a greater power is more content in the position in which it already exists. With these ideas in mind, the Congress of Vienna and its subsequent impact on foreign – and domestic – policies (Langhorne) for the participating states is crucial for understanding the years following 1815 as the major European powers adjusted to the idea of foreign policy through legitimization rather than the enforcement of individual philosophies.

Perhaps the most successful of all the states in the transition from the need to assert power to doing so from a “sense of obligation” was England. While there were a few instances of violent suppression of a gathering of individuals – the Peterloo Massacre being the most notable (Bamford) – and afterwards a suppression of the idea of a peaceful gathering of protest (the Six Acts, 1819), as the century progressed and the middle class spread, the governing bodies of England decided that in order to maintain their power (and to avoid the repetition of the events of the French Revolution of 1789) there would need to be change. In this case, England had a top-down approach to the modernization of the enforcement of rule as opposed to common bottom-up, revolutionary method. This was further evidenced by the development of sanitation as well as police forces, ultimately public services meant for the betterment of the whole. These services truly demonstrated the idea that England had moved towards the acceptance of the idea of legitimizing the power of the individuals that made up its society, counter to previous centuries where only land owners and the wealthy had power. The legitimization of the people was furthered by the spread of suffrage away from solely those whom owned land, but to the working class [men] as well. An increase in England’s economic prosperity, secured by the stability and security of being an island nation, England was able to stay, for the most part, separate from the turmoil of mainland Europe during the nineteenth century and thus able to focus on the structure of its society.

In contrast to England’s relative success in adopting the idea of legitimizing the power of the populace, Russia ultimately failed by Kissinger’s standards. Russia remained stagnant for the most part throughout the nineteenth century, the majority of the people remained serfs without the widespread technological development that led to increased literacy amongst the lower classes and thus cut the people off from more radical ideas, preventing revolt against the absolute power of the Tsar. While Catharine the Great had attempted to bring in change through her acquaintanceship to French philosophers, this ultimately failed as a result of her succession by Alexander I and later Nicholas I. Alexander I maintained some of Catharine the Great’s liberal values in the expansion of Russia as a European power; however, he was not as successful and few of his reformative ideas ever became reality. When Alexander I died without and heir (and his brother ultimately could not inherit), he was succeeded by Nicholas I who was in effect, the opposite of Catharine the Great and Alexander I. Following the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, where the people had planned on overthrowing Alexander I for not being liberal enough, Nicholas I feared for the loss of his own power in such a way that he became staunchly anti-liberal, opposing all ideas of freedom of the people (Dmytryshyn, Belinskii's Letter to Gogol, July 15, 1847). His creation of the Third Sector (the secret police) and adaptation of the idea of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality” was a precursor to Russia’s war with Prussia and the subsequent enforcement of these ideologies by force, especially over the general populace of Russia, though it was evident that there was also a lack of desire for change by the people as it was that there was no knowledge that there could be change in favor of the people (Dmytryshyn, Herzen's Letter to Michelet, September 22, 1851). Nicholas I was followed by Alexander II whose main contribution to the advancement of Russia as a power, was the abolition of serfdom in 1861. Therefore, while ‘sandwiched’ by periods of minimal social reform during the time period of 1815 to 1870, Russia in the end did not adopt Kissinger’s ideas of legitimacy through any sense of obligation.

England and Russia while opposites in terms of industrialization in the nineteenth century, were both states in which a majority of the population was homogenous, the people were distinctly “English” and “Russian” respectively. Austria did not have this luxury, made up as it was of a multitude of various ethnicities, cultures, and languages. Prussia faced a similar predicament in that it was a state of many kingdoms that were united only in name. Both Prussian and Austrian leaders maintained their power through force between 1815 and 1870 (prior to the formation of the German Confederation), though this was not for lack of trying on the parts of the people. Many Austrian students were leaders of reform, and it was in fact Metternich who was the major force behind the Congress of Vienna and the redistribution of European power after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Though Metternich later became “paranoid” in regards to change in society and those who felt a strong national identity (Evans 59). In Prussia, there were attempts at unification into one state under one power (and thus one nationality). Many of these attempts at reformation were peaceful, proposals to the king instead of revolts, however they were rejected.

In terms of revolutionary and ideas, France was at the forefront of all of the European States in the people’s bid for liberal reform. Though the people of France embraced the ideas of social freedoms, the ruling class did not want to give up the power that they had fought for: to retrieve it after the French Revolution of 1789 and to maintain it after the Congress of Vienna where other European demanded reparations for Napoleon’s wars. Following the Congress of Vienna, change was brought to France, as it experienced many revolutions against the ruling class. The aristocracy was brought back, though not to the extent and power of which it had prior to the French Revolution, and the people were given more freedom in regards to the power they had over the land. This redistribution of the authority occurred throughout the various monarchies as the French people pushed for more and more independence, though it did not come through peaceful means. The tumultuous period of time following the Congress of Vienna and prior to the Franco-Prussian War, meant that France was constantly shifting between assertion of power over the masses and reformation out of obligation (though in this case, obligatory reformation was in order to maintain power, rather than out of any sense of altruism).

Kissinger deliberates the idea that the Congress of Vienna was a turning point in how states interact with one another based on “legitimizing” one another through the acknowledgement of each state’s individual and defining characteristics (Kissinger 144-45). Not only did this alter the course on which states had previously interacted with one another, but it also changed how those in power interacted with the citizens within their own states. The shift from only those of noble (or royal) birth having access to power in defining the values of their state began with the Congress of Vienna and continued throughout the nineteenth century to a range of success for participating states; some states were more successful than others in changing ideologies through relatively ‘peaceful’ means rather than through an “assertion of power.”