Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna

We were overdue for a readable history of this period, and Zamoyski (bar the odd quibble) has done a creditable job. In particular, he brings out well the crucial importance of the Hundred Days, not for what might have happened - Napoleon's prospects were never very bright - but for what did, in giving the victors a badly needed cold shower. In the Summer of 1814 - barely three months after Napoleon's despatch to Elba - disputes over Saxony and Poland had brought them to the brink of war - with Britain and Austria ready to ally with France against their fellows. With Napoleon's defeat, all thought themselves "home and dry" and free to quarrel among themselves. The Deus ex machina - or "Diabolus ex Elba"? - delivered the mother of all wakeup calls, ramming home how fragile their victory still was, and concentrating their minds in a Johnsonian sense. And not just temporarily. The Holy Alliance, formed to preserve their victory, would endure for decades. Britain dropped out early - being an offshore island she could afford to - as did France after 1830, but not until the Crimean War did its core - Austria, Russia, Prussia - fall apart, and it was a further decade (1866) before one of those three actually fought another. Even that war - the work of another "wild card" of even lower probability than Napoleon - remained a unique "exception that proves the rule" until 1914. For Bismarck, having got what he wanted, promptly formed a "Dreikaiserbund" which was essentially the Holy Alliance by another name. All this was Napoleon's work, and specifically the result of his return in 1815. His admirers often speak of how he would have "united Europe" had he won, overlooking the degree to which he did unite a much of it for a remarkably long time. It recalls the old "united Ireland" joke that the Irish can unite only under British rule - because that unites them against the Brits. Napoleon did a similar job of uniting Europeans against himself. Some nitpicks. Zamoyski seems to take Napoleon's 1815 embrace of constitutional government seriously, though a plainer case of "The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be" is surely hard to find. And the last chapter spoils it somewhat, with his grumbles about the settlement often sounding plaintive and almost childish. He speaks of "Siberian chain gangs" as if these weren't a normal part of Russian history, or could have been made less common by some change in the Vienna settlement. More generally, complaining about their disregard of nationalism, he talks as if the peacemakers had a "tabula rasa", to draw on as they pleased, after himself spending the earlier and better parts of this work showing they didn't. Take Poland. The Tsar had it and was set on keeping it. Condemning the 1815 arrangements leaves only two alternatives, to close with the Tsar over the Poland/Saxony deal - little change, just slightly more Poles in Russia and less in Prussia - or else return to the carve-up of 1795, which from a "nationa

Adam Zamoyski says in his introduction (p.xiv) that the literature on the subject is scanty, elusive and one-sided. Noone can say this after having read this magnificent, scholarly and entertainingly written book. 570 pages on essentially three years of diplomacy could have been stodgy, but the writing is extremely lucid, and the minutiae of day-by-day negotiations (sometimes, as over the Saxon question, very repetitive, and just occasionally, as over Swiss affairs, also a little tedious) are seamlessly interspersed with vivid accounts of the personalities involved, of their moods and of the hedonistic and frivolous ways in which they spent their time between negotiations (much of the latter information culled from the reports of Metternich's secret surveillance teams). Fascinating details include: 1. The ease with which politicians in those days were able to move from employment by one court to employment by another: von Stein from the Prussian to the Russian Court; Hardenberg from the Hanoverian to the Prussian Court (and in office there during Prussia's annexation of Hanover); Gentz from being a civil servant in Berlin to being an agent of the British government and then to taking service in Austria. 2. The intense suspicion between all of Napoleon's opponents. Each constantly feared that others might come to terms with Napoleon at their expense: after all, there had been a long history before Napoleon's invasion of Russia when countries had made just such deals with Napoleon, whose victories had made it possible over and over again for him to play one of his enemies off against another. Even within delegations there were animosities: initially Britain was represented at negotiations by no fewer than three envoys who so obviously detested each other that they were simply ignored by the other diplomats. The English, not well versed in continental politics, were universally considered gauche in manner and women's dress; but eventually Castlereagh took over, and after a while he became one of the key players, and one of the more sensible ones at that. At one time the allies nearly went to war with each other - but the extraordinary thing is that while the threat of war hung over the Congress, the rival delegates met at balls and other spectacular entertainments every evening. 3. The open and promiscuous randiness of the principals is truly astonishing, as is the readiness of aristocratic and royal ladies to move from bed to bed. So many statesmen had affaires during the Congress: Metternich, who, while he had been ambassador at Napoleon's court, had slept with two of Napoleon's sisters, now fell in love with the Princess of Sagan and wrote her letters as remarkable for their love-struck clichés as for his measureless conceit; Humboldt sought out fat lower-class girls; women threw themselves at the ever-willing Alexander I. There are marvellous chapters (esp. 18, 19 and 21) on what life was like during the Congress of Vien

Adam Zamoyski's `Rites of Peace' is a thorough examination of the fall of Napoleon's empire and the subsequent reconstruction of Europe by the victorious allied powers of Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. The Congress of Vienna, as this delegation was dubbed, was a watershed moment in European history, says Zamoyski, and one that has been largely neglected by historians ever since. Replete with extravagant soirées, hunting trips, duels, and scandalous sexual liaisons, this eight-month long negotiation served as a meeting ground for a virtual who's who of European nobility. Most prominent and influential were Talleyrand, Metternich, Tsar Alexander, Frederick William III, Castlereagh, Wellington, Humboldt, and an array of monarchs, princes, and aristocrats that are too numerous to name. Ostensibly, the goal was to bring stability and justice to the entire continent, and to a certain degree this was successful. But inevitably, all parties had their own agenda and thus Zamoyski's story is one full of intrigue and political maneuvering. The results were mixed, but the effects of the Congress of Vienna would impact the whole of Europe for some time to come. First, I have to give credit where credit is due. Zamoyski's bibliography is huge and he clearly has done a massive amount of research for this book. This is definitely one of the most thorough and detailed histories that I have read. The negative side of this is that it is a bit too detailed, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading about all the debauchery and scandalous escapades, but Zamoyski tends to wander off into inane details that only serve to temporarily bore the reader. With that said, Zamoyski nicely utilizes many original sources, such as personal letters from Metternich to his many lovers, which successfully convey how the principal actors viewed their mission, as well as their fellow delegates. I definitely finished the book with a good feeling for the personalities and intentions of all those involved. Overall, except for a bit too much fluff, I would say this is definitely a groundbreaking and worthwhile read that shouldn't be missed. Four stars.

One of the most neglected and least understood periods of the early 19th Century was the peace settlement that ending the Napoleonic wars, the Congress of Vienna. Over the years there have been few books in English on the Congress of Vienna; the most notable was The Congress of Vienna a Study in Allied Unity 1812-1822, by Harold Nicolson, a solid but rather dry work on the subject. Rites of Peace by Adam Zamoyski, is a fast pace, well written book on this fascinating topic. So much of what we thought we knew about the congress seems to be incorrect, Alexander l takes on the same characteristic of megalomania that Napoleon suffered from between 1811-1814. Metternich, is portrayed as being far more interested in his love life then fate of Europe and so forth. A great book on a difficult and confusing topic.

I have also read,"The Polish Way," "The Forgotten Heroes,"(about The Polish air Force in WW II - Saving London), and just thoroughly enjoyed this one. One thing about all of Zamoyski's books is that they are, above and beyond, the best researched books, that I've probably ever read. I so look forward to the next Zamoyski work. One gets wonderfully lost in reading his work. Quite the brain massage. Highly recommended!!!