Wednesday, February 19, 2025
The introduction and causes of the crimean War.
The Crimean war is the third violent event in the 19th century eastern
question. It was fought
by Turkey, Britain, France and Piedmont against Russia on the island of
Crimea in the black
sea from 1854-1856.
The Crimean war was the first major war between the great powers after
the Napoleonic war.
It is one of the most wasteful and useless wars fought without strong reasons.
A critical view
of the characteristics of the war has made some historians to conclude that
it was a war of
insanity and absurdity fought without clear objectives and principles. The
immediate event
that sparked off the war was the Russian occupation of the two Turkish
provinces of Wallacia
and Moldavia in 1853.
Causes of the Crimean Wars in Europe
1. The Russian imperialism in the Balkans was a serious threat to the British,
French & Turkish interests.
Tsar Nicholas 1 of Russia exaggerated the conditions of Turkey as a sick-man
of Europe in order to facilitate the disintegration of the Empire. Russian's
interest was to dominate the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Russia had
gained commercial, strategic and economic benefits within the Turkish
Empire through the treaties of Adrianople (1828) and Unkier Skellessi (1833).
This strengthened Russian imperialism in the Balkan and forced the great
powers to intervene (in the Syrian question) and nullify the treaties in the
1841 straits convention. Russia surprised the powers in 1853 when she
conquered and occupied Moldavia and Wallacia. By this time Britain and
France were fed up with Russian imperialism and decided to help Turkey to
push Russia out of the two provinces which led to the Crimean war.
2. Besides, the Crimean war was caused by Russia's false confidence. Russia
disregarded Turkey as a sick man of Europe that would easily collapse with
her invasion. Russia had also relatively been peaceful and free from
revolutions compared to other powers like France, Prussia, Turkey and
Austria. Tsar Nicholas I therefore falsely concluded that such powers were
already weakened by revolutions and Russian victory over them would be
obvious. This encouraged the Tsar to pursue a reckless policy towards Turkey
that led to the outbreak of the Crimean war. On the other hand, earlier
events made Tsar Nicholas 1 to have a misconception that no other power
would support Turkey against his aggression. He falsely believed that
alliance between Britain and Russia against Napoleon I would still continue
against Napoleon III. He was also mistaken to think that Russia's solidarity
with Britain against France in Egypt, Syrian question and the 1840 London
convention were too recent to make Britain and France ally against him.
He also expected assistance from Austria for he had assisted Austria to
suppress the 1848 revolution in Hungary. Above all, he believed that no
Christian power would ally with Turkey being an Islamic state. All these,
gave Tsar Nicholas 1 false confidence that Turkey was an isolated state
prompting him to occupy Moldavia and Wallacia only to be disapproved
when France and Britain joined hands to assist Turkey.
3. The Franco-Russian scramble for the control of the holy places in
Jerusalem and Bethlehem has been greatly blamed for making the
Crimean war inevitable. France was given the right to protect the holy
places by the treaty of 1740, but she relaxed due to domestic and financial
problems. This made the sultan to give Russia, a nearer neighbour with more
pilgrims the right to protect the holy shrines by the Kurchuk kainardji treaty
of 1774. However, Napoleon III revived the old French claim and instructed
the French ambassador in Constantinople to present this demand to Russia.and the Sultan. The sultan accepted although he didn't accept to exclude
the Russians. Russia protested and occupied Moldavia and Wallacia to
justify her claim, which sparked off the Crimean war.
4. Napoleon Ill's ambitions to revenge the Moscow campaign of 1812 was
also responsible for the Crimean war. In 1812, Napoleon I who was
Napoleon Ill's uncle was disastrously defeated and humiliated by Russia.
Napoleon I lost over 550,000 troops, which became a turning point and
contributed to his downfall. In 1848, Napoleon III rose to power by promising
to revive the Napoleonic tradition in Europe (i.e. in his campaign manifesto
for the 1848 elections). This made him to look for an opportunity to fight
Russia and revenge the 1812 disastrous defeat of his great uncle Napoleon
I inter-alia. This opportunity came in 1853 when Russia occupied Moldavia
and Walachia.
5. Besides, there were personal and political problems between Tsar
Nicholas I and Napoleon III. Tsar Nicholas 1treated the rise of Napoleon III
to the French throne as a challenge to the Vienna settlement, which had
provided that no one from Napoleon's line should ever again rule France.
He refused to recognize Napoleon III as a legitimate ruler and kept on
addressing him as "my friend" instead of "my brother", which was
traditionally used in addressing fellow monarchs. This irritated Napoleon III
and he decided to teach the Tsar a lesson when he occupied Moldavia
and Wallacia, which made the Crimean war inevitable.
6. The absence of international organization and a capable statesman left
a vacuum for the explosion of the Crimean war. The congress system and
Metternich had maintained peace after the downfall of Napoleon I. But
the congress system collapsed by 1830 and Metternich fell in 1848 leaving
Europe without an organization and incapable men like Stratford de-Red
cliff and Napoleon III who had little provision for diplomacy in settling
conflicts. This is why the Turko-Russian conflict over Moldavia and Wallacia
easily degenerated into the Crimean war.
7. The weaknesses of Turkey as a sick man of Europe played no small
contribution to the outbreak of the Crimean war. Turkey misgoverned her
subjects, which provoked uprisings within the Empire and attracted the
intervention of European powers (to safeguard their interests). This led to
clashes and rivalry that climaxed into the Crimean war. Besides, it was
Turkey who persecuted Christians in Moldavia and Wallacia and gave
Russia an excuse to occupy the territories with a pretext of protecting the
minority Christian population.lt should be noted that if Turkey was not sick,there would be no controversy over diagnosis and treatment since there
would be no disease. The crux of the matter is that she was sick and that is
why there was tension over Russian Medicine of Partitioning the empire to
avoid the chaos and quarrels that would arise.
8. The convergent and conflicting interests of European powers over the
Ottoman Empire made the war inevitable. Industrial revolution had created
an urgent need to acquire colonies and areas of influence for raw
materials, markets, investment and resettlement of excess population. This
is why there was rivalry for influence in the Ottoman Empire between Russia,
Britain and France. Britain that was the most industrialized hated Russian
expansion because it would jeopardize her trade within the Ottoman
Empire, the Far East and the Mediterranean Sea. This is why Britain and even
France decided to force Russia out of Moldavia and Wallacia leading to
the Crimean war.
9. The Crimean war was also caused by anti-Russian hysteria in Britain and
France. Tsar Nicholas 1 of Russia was very oppressive and despotic to his
subjects plus the poles and Hungarians who were under his influence. The
French and British therefore called for war against Russia so as to bring
peace and Justice to the Russian subjects. The middle class and the
parliament of both countries argued for war as a solution to Russian
oppression, exploitation and despotism. This negative public opinion
against Russia propelled Britain and France to declare war against Russia in
1854.
10. The downfall of capable statesmen and the rise of aggressive and self
seeking ambitious leaders in Europe made the outbreak of the Crimean
war inevitable. In Austria, Metternich who had maintained peace in Europe
after the downfall of Napoleon I was forced to flee to exile in 1848.
Schwarzenburg and later Count Boul who replaced Metternich were
incompetent in maintaining diplomatic cooperation between Western and
Eastern Europe leave alone the Balkans. In France, Louis Philippe who
pursued a peaceful foreign policy was replaced by Napoleon III who was
determined to pursue an aggressive foreign policy and revive French
influence in Europe. In Russia, Tsar Alexander I was replaced by Tsar
Nicholas I in 1825 who was more aggressive ^and interested in breaking up
the Ottoman Empire. In Britain, Palmer stone (prime minister) was replaced
by Lord Aberdeen who was weak willed, soft on Russia and not enthusiastic
for war as Palmer stone was, which indirectly encouraged Russia to invade
Moldavia and Wallacia. Thus, one can conclude that the rise and
weaknesses of Schwarzenburg, Count Boul, Napoleon III, Tsar Nicholas I andLord Aberdeen brought inexperienced and uncompromising men in
sensitive political offices making the outbreak of the Crimean war
inevitable.
11. The role of men on the spot was also instrumental in the Crimean war.
Prince Menshikoff the Russian representative in Turkey advised Russia to use
force as the only way to safeguard her interest in the Balkans and holy
Shrines. Stratford de-Red-Cliffe consolidated the British anti-Russian feeling
and policy by exaggerating Russian threats in the Balkans. He advised
Turkey to declare war on Russia after the Russian occupation of Moldavia
and Wallacia. Thus, Menshikoff inspired Russia to forcefully occupy
Moldavia and Wallacia and Stratford-de-Red cliffe influenced Britain and
Turkey to fight Russia, which made the Crimean war inevitable.
12. The Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallacia in July 1853 was a
major event that led to the Crimean war. Moldavia and Wallacia were
semi-independent provinces of Ottoman Empire under the Sultan of Turkey.
Russia occupied them to press the sultan to accept her claim of protecting
the holy places of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The sultan protested the
Russian occupation and declared war against her in October 1853. France
and Britain joined Turkey and shifted the war from Moldavia and Wallacia
up to Crimea in Russia and hence the Crimean or crime war as John Bright
the British liberal politician told his son.
13. The Great Sinope massacre of November 1853 was the most immediate
incident that triggered the Crimean war. When Turkey declared war on
Russia, Russia reacted by sinking the Turkish warship at Sinope in the black
sea. This was considered an unjustifiable massacre and created war fever
in Britain and France. Britain and France reacted by sending their warships
in the black sea and ordering Russia to withdraw from Moldavia and
Wallacia, to which the Tsar refused. This made Britain and France to declare
war on Russia in March 1854 and follow her up to Crimea in August when
she finally withdrew due to pressure of events.Readmore
Achievements Of Louis Xviii (1815 -1824) during his time when he was in power in france
1. King Louis XVIII was less despotic. He maintained a parliamentary system of government and tried to abide by the provisions of the constitutional charter of 1814. This helped to cool down the French revolutionaries and Napoleonic supporters whose fear was that the restored Bourbon monarchy would revive the despotic and undemocratic pre 1789 system of rule. His acceptance of the 1814 constitutional charter also won him diplomatic recognition from the Great powers especially Britain. All these helped to consolidate the rule of the restored Bourbon monarchy in a dynamic and revolutionary France.2. Louis XVIII succeeded in paying off the war indemnity that had been imposed on France after the downfall of Napoleon I. At the 2nd Paris peace treaty of20th Nov 1815, the victor powers imposed a huge war indemnity of_700'million francs on France. King Louis XVI cleared off the whole indemnity within only three (3) years. This made the victorious powers to withdraw the army of occupation from France in 1818 at the congress of Aix Lachapalle.3. Louis XVIlI restored the greatness of France in Europe. France had been in a hostile relationship with Europe right from the revolutionary government through the reign of Napoleon ), However in 1818, Richelieu, the French representative at the congress of Aix Lachapalle advocated for the admission of France in the congress system. This was accepted and France was admitted in the congress system, which ended her isolation amongst the great powers of Europe. This meant that France under Louis XVIII was still a great power to reckon with in European politics.4. Louis XVIII succeeded in reorganizing and re- equipping the French army under military genius of Marshall Cyr. The French military apparatus and army were completely disorganized by the allied forces that defeated Napoleon. Louis XVIII improved the military position of France by recruiting young Frenchmen into the army and re- deploying old generals.Furthermore, the ministry of Duke de- decades (1818-1820), a liberal army law was passed that provided for on merit and voluntary recruitment.5. Economically, during Villeles' ministry (1821 - 1827), high import duties were adopted to protect home industries from competition. Financial re-organization that was begun by -eon I was also successfully accomplished. This helped to restore some degree of financial stability of an economy that had been destroyed by war for over decades.6. Louis XVIII was realistic and was not ready to tamper with the achievements of the French Revolution and its heir Napoleon. These included trial by jury and the code Napoleon. He to restrain the ultra royalists in their quest for revenge (The white terror). This is why he granted amnesty for the victims of ultra-royalist quest for revenge who had not yet been compromised. All that Louis XVIII wanted was peaceful co-existence between the past revolutionaries and. The royalists as he said that, I will not be a king of two people.7. In his foreign policy, Louis XVIII recorded success when he suppressed the Spanish revolts in 1823 and restored Ferdinand VII to power. This earned him and France glory and prestige showing that he had not learnt nothing and forgotten nothing of how adventurous the French men were.However, he failed to help Ferdinand VII and Spain to recover the Spanish American colonies due to opposition from Britain and President Monroe of the United States of America nevertheless; he had succeeded in re-establishing the Bourbon dynasty in Spain,Lastly, Louis XVIII succeeded in his reconciliation policy. He avoided to completely adopt the ultra royalist programs and even warned his brother Charles X about it on the eve of his death. He sided with moderate ultra-royalists. Louis also created a strong solidarity with some former revolutionaries and Napoleon's supporters. For example, he appointed Napoleon's former ministers like Fochi to his cabinet. This brought harmony after the white terror showing that he had learnt something from the reign of terror during the course of the French Revolution.Readmore
Contributions/ Role Of European Powers In The Dowfall Of The Congress System
1) Britain (Lord Stewart Castlereagh and George Canning)
I) Britain was primarily responsible for the collapse of the congress system.
She pursued a policy of isolation from continental obligations i.e. non
interventionist foreign policy. The policy was to avoid unnecessary
expenses, loss of her citizens in suppressing revolutions and negative public
opinion in case of failures. The policy was unfortunate for the congress
system because it was Britain that played the greatest role in the dawn fall
of Napoleon and her role in the post Napoleonic re-organization of Europe
was therefore of paramount importance. Above all, Britain was the most
politically stable state and the greatest economic and military power in
Europe. The British isolation therefore denied the congress system of her
enormous economic resources and military power that could have
improved the capacity of the congress system to meet its challenges. Herisolation gave Metternich an added advantage to impose his
conservative, anti; liberal and nationalistic policies on Europe against
smaller states. This led to the outbreak of revolutionary movements in 1820's
that destabilized Europe and divided the Congress powers, thus leading to
the downfall of the congress system.
ii). Britain is blamed for her moral and logistical support to liberal and
nationalistic movements in Greece, Spain, Naples, Argentina, Italian and
German states. Being a liberal and democratic state where respect for
fundamental human rights and freedom were adhered to, Britain did not
see any sense in suppressing revolutions that were intended to overthrow
oppressive, exploitative and tyrannical leaders. Lord Castlereagh made it
very clear in his state paper which was published in 1820 that:
... Britain owed her present dynasty and constitution to an internal
revolution. She could not therefore deny to other countries the same right
of changing their form of government (Grant and Temperleys, PP 142 - 143).
This explains why Britain opposed the idea of suppressing revolutions right
from the Congress of
Aix-la-Chapelle as interference in to the internal affairs of other nations. It
antagonized Britain with Austria, Prussia and Russia who favoured the policy
of suppressing revolutions hence the collapse of the Congress system.
iii). Britain supported the Monroe doctrine against the interest of other
congress powers. In Dec 1823, President Monroe of America issued the
famous Monroe doctrine in which he warned other powers against
intervention on American affairs especially on matters related to the
Spanish colonies.
George Canning of Britain overwhelmingly supported the doctrine against
Russia, France, Prussia and Austria who had declared their intension to help
Spain recover her colonies that she had lost as a result of the 1823
revolution. Besides, Britain threatened to fight any power that would cross
the Atlantic Ocean to South America be it in Spain or France irrespective
of the motive. This left the rest of the congress powers frustrated, defeated
the principle of intervention, and tore the congress system further apart.
iv). George Canning of Britain officially withdrew British membership of the
congress system in 1823.
Britain was committed to alliance system mainly to safeguard her
commercial interest against French and Napoleonic aggressions. Thisthreat ended with the defeat of Napoleon and admission of France in the
congress system, leaving Britain uncommitted to congress affairs thereafter.
The French intervention in Spain in 1823 gave George Canning the
opportunity to officially withdraw British membership to the congress system
at the congress of Verona. He considered the French restoration of
Ferdinand VII to his throne in Spain as “…. an affront to the pride of
England," He further commented that: The issue of Verona has split the one
and indivisible alliance and so things are getting back to a whole some
state again, every nation for itself and God for us all.
He concluded that "Praise God that there would be no more Congresses"
and resorted to the policy of every nation for itself and God for us all. This
was the practical disintegration of the congress system.
v). After withdrawing from the congress system, Britain declined to review
her policy. She refused to participate in the 1824 congress that was called
by Ferdinand VII of Spain to settle the issue of
Spanish colonies, which made the intended congress to abort. She also
declined to attend the 1825 congress of St. Petersburg that was called by
Tsar Nicholas I to settle the question of the Greek struggle for
independence. This frustrated Russian intension to peacefully address the
question of Greek independence and gave opportunity for escalation of
violence that left European powers more divided.
vi). Britain openly rejected the Troppau protocol that was declared by
Austria, Prussia and Russia. In 1820, the three powers at the congress of
Troppau passed the Troppau protocol in which they pledged to suppress
revolutions whenever and wherever they occurred. Lord Stewart
Castlereagh argued that such a measure would frustrate genuine internal
struggle to overthrow oppressive, exploitative and autocratic rulers. He was
so furious when he addressed the British parliament that he sarcastically
declared the protocol "a destitute of common sense" and argued the
concerned powers to confine the congress system within the limits of
common sense. This weakened the principle of intervention and provoked
liberal and nationalistic revolutions in smaller states that became a
challenge leading to the downfall of the Congress System.
vii). Britain had long term negative feelings and hatred for Russia and
Austria. She disliked Russia for her imperialism in the Middle East and the
Mediterranean Sea because it threatened her commercial interest. She
hated Austria because Metternich had dominated Europe and centralized
European affairs in Vienna. George Canning wanted European affairs tobe centralized and settled in London than Vienna (Austria). In other words,
Canning wanted to hijack the balance of power from Austria in order to
consolidate British supremacy in European affairs. The British preconceived
hatred and negative feelings against Russia and Austria led to unnecessary
disagreements involving her and other powers such as the issues of joint
army, piracy, slave trade, Spanish revolution and Greek independence. It
thus led to mistrust, suspicion and disharmony that doomed the Congress
system.
viii). Britain was a big force behind the Vienna congress which laid a poor
foundation for the congress system. The congress unfairly restored the most
oppressive and dictatorial rulers and undermined the forces of liberalism
and nationalism of the smaller states. She was also a signatory of the
quadruple alliance that set foundation for discrimination of the smaller
states. Above all, Britain manipulated the Congress to gain too much
territory to the annoyance of Russia and Prussia.
These became a very weak foundation on which the congress system was
built and thus contributed to its eventual collapse.
ix). The British selfish desire to safeguard her economic interest ejected her
out of the Congress system. She had a hidden agenda of using the
congress system to protect her trade zone and acquire more territories for
her merchants. However, her interest in the Middle East and
Mediterranean Sea was threatened by Russian imperialism and influence in
the area. This left
Britain that had initially opposed the Greek war of independence to turn
round and support the Greeks alongside Russia when she noted that the
success of the struggle was inevitable. She did this because Russia's
assistance in establishing a new Greek state on the map of Europe would
be a serious setback to her commercial interest in the Middle East and
Mediterranean Sea. She also supported the Monroe doctrine and warned
other powers not to cross the Atlantic Ocean to suppress the revolution in
Spain because her trade with Latin American states had drastically
improved since Ferdinand YD was ousted from power. Thus, British selfish
economic interest conflicted with common interest that the congress
system was to promote leading to its down fall by 1825.
x). Britain opposed and vetoed the idea of forming a Joint international
army at the congress of Aix -La Chapalle in 1818. Fredrick William III of Prussia
had proposed the formation of a joint army based in Brussels to suppressrevolutions, Lord Costlereagh rejected it that it would amount to interfering
in the internal affairs of other states. It left the congress system without a
force to implement its resolutions, which encouraged smaller states like
Italy, Spain, Naples and Greece to wage a struggle for their freedom
without fear. Absence of a joint army weakened the congress system and
made it more theoretical than practical hence accounting for its downfall.
xi) Lastly, Britain's desire to safeguard her naval supremacy, also contributed
to the downfall of the congress system. At the congress of Aix - La Chapalle
(1818), Tsar Alexander I of Russia suggested a joint military operation in the
Mediterranean Sea to fight Sea pirates. This was out rightly rejected by
Castlereagh who feared that the presence of Russian warships in the
Mediterranean sea would be a big challenge to her naval supremacy and
monopoly of the sea. It should be noted that pirates were not a big threat
to Britain because they feared and respected British ships contrary to those
of other powers.
This therefore left a legacy of suspicion and intense bitterness in other
powers against Britain that made the collapse of the congress system
inevitable.
2. Austria (Francis II and Prince Metternich)
i). Austria hosted the Vienna congress that laid a shaky foundation, which
led to the collapse of the congress system. Prince Metternich who chaired
the congress manipulated the congress to restore unpopular legitimate
rulers and maintained them by suppressing revolutionary movements
against them. He also influenced the congress to undermine nationalistic
and liberal feelings of the smaller states by subjecting them to foreign
domination. This consolidated conservation and led to the outbreak of
liberal and nationalistic revolutions that undermined the Congress system.
Besides, Metternich's desire to maintain Austria's supremacy and Vienna as
the diplomatic theatre of Europe angered Britain and partly influenced
George Canning to withdraw Britain's membership from the congress
system.
ii) Austria is blamed for her imperialism and domination of the smaller states.
She used the Vienna congress to dominate European affairs and smaller
states e.g. Italians and Germans. It promoted imbalance of power that
other powers did not admire. Her domination of the smaller states triggered
nationalistic protests such as the 1820's revolts in Naples and piedmont that
divided the congress powers. It should be stressed that Austria's suppression
of such revolts and restoration of ousted kings was authorized by thecongress of Laibach (1822) amidst British opposition, which partly
influenced Britain to pull out of the congress system by 1823.i
iii) Austria was influential in issuing the 1820 Troppau Protocol in which
Prussia, Russia and herself vowed to suppress revolutions and restore ousted
kings in Europe. The spread of liberalism and nationalism was a formidable
threat to the heterogeneous Austrian empire as they would trigger
nationalistic movements that could break the empire into pieces. This
background made her influence Prussia and Russia to issue the Troppau
protocol, which Britain rejected out rightly and France accepted with
reservations. This widened the gap between liberal countries (Britain and
France) Vis-a Vis conservative states (Prussia, Russia and Austria), thus
leading to the collapse of the congress system.
iv) Austria's conservative ideology dragged her to oppose the granting of
the Greek independence. She supported Turkish autocratic rule over the
Greeks and opposed the Greek struggle for freedom from the congress of
Verona up to the end of the congress system. It brought her into conflict
with Russia, Britain and France who assisted the Greeks to attain their
independence. This explains why no more congress was held after the
heated debate at the congress of St. Petersburg where Austria and Prussia
protested to Russian, British and French assistance to the Greeks.
v)Austria is also blamed for her opposition to the formation of a joint naval
force to right slave dealers.
Castleragh proposed this idea at the congress of Aix - Lachapalle in 1818
but Austria rejected it on suspicion that it would give Britain more power to
support revolutionary movements in other states.
This undermined the spirit of cooperation and togetherness that was
essential for the survival of the congress system.
vi).Austrian influence through the Metternich system made the downfall of
the congress system inevitable. Metternich manipulated the congress
system to consolidate Austria's supremacy, promote conservatism and
suppress the revolutionary forces of liberty, equality and fraternity. He used
the congress system to enhance his oppressive anti; liberal and nationalistic
policies of press censorship, spy net work, divide and rule, force etc. This
could not be tolerated after the rise of Charles X in France, George
Canning in Britain and Tsar Nicholas I in Russia. These new generations of
leaders were opposed to conservative Metternich policies and influence
over the congress system. No wonder that they sympathized and supportedliberal struggles such as in Greece against Metternich's expectation. This
killed the congress spirit and brought the congress system to an end.
3.Russia (Tsar Alexander 1, 1801-1825,and Tsar Nicholas1, 1825-1855)
Russia was part of the unrealistic Vienna Congress and the Troppau
Protocol that consolidated
Metternich's conservatism against the forces of liberalism and nationalism.
The Vienna Congress discriminated small states and restored oppressive
and unpopular kings to their thrones. The 1820 Troppau protocol brought
Russia, Austria and Prussia in alliance to defend oppressive rulers that Britain
rejected and France accepted reluctantly. All these led to tension in
Europe and undermined the congress system leading to its downfall.
Russia's imperial ambitions in the Balkans were also responsible for the
downfall of the congress system. Her desire to take control of the Balkans
by supporting nationalistic movements brought her into logger heads with
Austria and Britain. Austria protested such support because it would spark
off nationalistic movements within her heterogeneous empire. Britain
objected because it would undermine her commercial interest in the
Middle East. Thus, Russian imperialism in the Balkans threatened the interest
of other powers and brought disharmony that led to the downfall of the
congress system.
iii).Russia was the first power to support the Greek war of independence,
which is an event that accelerated the downfall of the congress system.
She incited the Greeks against Turkey and proceeded to support them
militarily. Although Britain and France initially opposed Russia's secret
assistance to the Greeks, Russia's continued assistance and the high
prospects of Greek success made them to change their mind and join
Russia to assist the Greeks. This was a desperate measure by Britain to
safeguard her economic interest and France to safeguard her religious
motives against Russia's threatening influence. On the other hand, Austria
and Prussia opposed such assistance including the granting of
independence to the Greeks. Thus, Russia's support to the Greeks divided
the congress powers into two and caused its collapse.
iv.) Russia's ambitions to challenge Britain's naval supremacy brought
disharmony between her and Britain. She provoked Britain's suspicion by
stationing her warships in the Mediterranean Sea. Tsar Alexander I went
ahead at the congress of Aix - Lachapalle to propose the formation of a
joint force to fight pirates in the Mediterranean Sea. This was rejected byLord Stewart Castlereagh as a move to strengthen Russian influence in the
Mediterranean Sea in order to challenge Britain's supremacy.
Indeed, British suspicion to Russia's challenge to her naval superiority was
too deep rooted that she could not accept her (Russia's) noble call to fight
pirates that was a common threat to trade across the Mediterranean Sea.
v) The death of Tsar Alexander I in 1825 led to the rise of Tsar Nicholas I
whose attitude and policies buried the congress system. Tsar Nicholas I was
too proud, arrogant and confident in Russia's military strength that he felt
insulted to be restrained in his foreign policy. He developed a more
aggressive and interventionist foreign policy that was reflected in his
determination to assist the Greeks against Turkey. Besides his inexperience
and narrow/little knowledge of European affairs, Tsar Nicholas I was not one
of the historical founders of the Congress system and thus cared little for its
existence. His character and support of the Greeks was seriously protested
by Prussia and Austria at the congress of St. Petersburg and ended in total
confusion. This destroyed the congress spirit and there were no more
congress held thereafter.
4. Prussia (Fredrick William III)
i) Prussia is blamed for being a signatory to the Vienna settlement and the
Troppau protocol. The Vienna resolutions and the Troppau protocol
consolidated conservatism and undermined the spirit of liberalism and
nationalism in Europe. The principle of intervention that Prussia supported in
the protocol was unacceptable to Britain and small powers that were
oppressed. It brought liberal and nationalistic protests that divided the
congress powers leading to the disintegration of the congress system.
ii).Fredrick William III joined other powers in opposing Castlereagh's proposal
for a joint operation to stop slave trade at the congress of Aix - La -
Chapalle. This left Castlereagh frustrated and partly forced her to resort to
her usual policy of isolation that led to the collapse of the congress system.
iii).Prussia opposed the Greek war of independence and the granting of
Geek independence. This brought her into conflict with Russia, Britain and
France who were assisting the Greeks to regain their independence. Prussia
allied with Austria and stood against supporting the Greeks and the
granting of Greek independence at the congress of St. Petersburg .
5. France (Louis XVIII, 1814-1824 and Charles X, 1824-1830)
i). France was the source of revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality and
fraternity. These ideas were consolidated by Napoleonic influence on
Europe and led to the rise of the spirit of liberalism and nationalism in
Europe. They led to the outbreak of revolutions such as the 1820's
movements in Spain, Naples and Greece. This brought conflict between
the congress powers hence leading to the downfall of the congress system.
ii).The admission of France in the congress system at the congress of Aix -
La- Chapalle in 1818 contributed to the downfall of the congress system. It
brought reconciliation between France and other powers and ended the
danger of French aggression in Europe. It undermined the unity of purpose
and the spirit of togetherness that had brought European powers together
in defense against revolutionary and Napoleonic aggressions. It also
provided Britain with an opportunity to concentrate on her own internal
problems and pursue the policy of splendid isolation. Besides, France was
not fully trusted and thus treated with suspicion by the quadruple powers
most especially Russia. This undermined the spirit of trust, cooperation,
harmony and unity that led to the downfall of the congress system.
iii). France is blamed for getting entangled in the Greek war of
independence alongside Britain and Russia. As a great Christian state,
France felt that Russian's unilateral assistance to the Greeks would make
her dominant in the Balkans and jeopardize her religious interest. It is this
that drove her to join Russia and Britain to assist the Greeks. This move was
however protested by Prussia and Austria leading to the collapse of the
congress system.
iv). It was Bishop Tallyrand, the French representative at the Vienna
Congress who initiated the unrealistic principle of legitimacy. Richelieu, the
French representative in the congress system continued to advocate for
the restoration and maintenance of dictatorial, oppressive and
conservative kings in Europe. It left the congress system as an alliance to
promote conservatism, oppression and exploitation of the smaller states.
This earned the congress system enormous unpopularity that could not
make it exist beyond 1825.
Louis XVI's suppression of the Spanish revolution and restoration of
Ferdinand to his throne is what ejected Britain out of the congress system.
By 1823, Spanish revolutionaries had overthrown Ferdinand VII from his
throne. At the congress of Verona in 1822, Britain objected to any attempt
to restore Ferdinand VD to his throne. However, France was permitted by
other powers to suppress the revolution and restore Ferdinand back to histhrone, which she accomplished in 1823. George Canning Was so disturbed
by the French action that he lamented:
The issue of Spain has split the one and indivisible alliance and so things are
getting back to a whole same state again, every nation for itself and God
for us all.
He consequently withdrew Britain from the congress system that became
the biggest blow, which led to the down fall of the congress system.
6. USA (President Monroe)
President Monroe of USA issued the famous Monroe doctrine that split the
congress powers and led to the downfall of the congress system. On
December 1823, he issued the doctrine where he warned that any
interference by European powers on American soil would be regarded “ as
manifestation of an unfriendly disposition to the United States”. (H.L
Peacock, A history of modern Europe, 7th ' Edition p. 89).This defeated the
Troppau protocol and the principle of intervention that Austria, Prussia,
Russia and France wanted to use to restore Ferdinand VII to his throne. It
was fully supported by Britain against other congress powers hence splitting
the congress powers and enhancing the downfall of the congress system.
Spain (Ferdinand VII)
Ferdinand VII is blamed for his exploitative, oppressive and tyrannical rule
that triggered a revolution, which divided the congress powers. Besides,
Spain had imperial influence in Latin America.
However; Spanish revolutionaries overthrew him and his colonies in America
regained their independence. The issue brought a heated disagreement
at the congress of Verona where Britain vehemently opposed the attempt
by other powers to restore Ferdinand to his throne. When France went
ahead to restore Ferdinand to his throne in 1823, George Canning pulled
Britain out of the congress system. He later supported the Monroe doctrine
that scared the congress powers, from suppressing the revolution in Spain
and restoring Ferdinand VII to his throne. This became a big challenge to
the principle of intervention and contributed to the downfall of the congress system.
Factors which led to collapase of congress system in Europe during their time in power.
By 1830, the congress system had failed to achieve its noble objectives and
was already languishing in the dustbin of history. The factors for the downfall
of the congress system were too varied and complex. They range from the
selfish and divergent interests of the powers to the absence of an agreed
principle of political faith and the social developments of a new Europe
against conservative forces leave alone the emergence of new and
inexperienced leaders.
1. Self interest of the congress powers
The congress system was doomed from the onset due to conflicting aims of
its participants. It was a combination of different states with different aims
and objectives that became a source of mistrust, suspicion, jealousy and
conflicts amongst the powers. This was because each power wanted to
satisfy its national interest and refused to sacrifice it for the sake of common
interest. Austria wanted to use the congress system to dominate the Italians
and Germans and expand her empire, to central Europe.
Prussia wanted to annex Saxony and the Grand Dutchy of war-saw. Russia
aimed at dominating the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Britain needed
more colonies to promote her trade and France wanted fair treatment and
a revival of her influence over Europe. These explains why there were
disagreements and lack of consensus over sensitive issues like a joint army,
pirates, slave trade, Spanish revolt and colonies and the Greek war of
independence. Each power was motivated by selfish interest that dug a
political grave for the congress system.
NB. Britain rejected the formation of an army to suppress revolutions
because she was a liberal country and wanted to maintain her policy of
isolation let alone wasting taxpayer's money and men in suppressing such
movements. She also vetoed the proposal to deal with pirates because the
pirates feared the union jack and British ships. Other powers reacted by
throwing a way British proposals to deal with slave traders because it would
give Britain that had the strongest navy excessive powers of interference.
Britain again resisted the suppression of Spanish revolution and the
restoration of Ferdinand because it would undermine her booming trade in
the area.
Russia assisted the Greeks because of the need to dominate the remains
of the Ottoman Empire.
Britain saw that Russia's assistance would jeopardize her commercial and
strategic interests in the region and decided to join Russia. France also
realized that Russia's assistance would jeopardize her religious claims over
Greek Christians and decided also to assist the Greeks. Austria and Prussia
saw that Russia's intervention would increase her influence in the Balkans
and threaten their survival and interest. These forced Prussia and Austria to
oppose the Greek war of independence. Thus, self interest scattered the
congress powers in different and opposite direction that became a
countdown for its downfall.
2. Admission of France (1818)
The admission of France in the congress system was a blessing in disguise
that contributed to the collapse of the system. The congress system was
partly formed to safeguard against further French aggression and the return
of Napoleon to power. The admission of France in 1818 destroyed the
possibility of French aggression and the death of Napoleon in 1821 erased
the fear of his return to power. These two events undermined the co-
operation and unity amongst the allies most especially Britain who decided
to concentrate on her own internal problems. Castlereagh made this clear
on May 5th 1820 in his "State paper" where he stated that Britain was only
committed to preventing the return of Napoleon I or his dynasty to France.
Furthermore, France was never fully trusted and was isolated within the
congress powers. This robbed the powers of the unity, co-operation and
harmony upon which the system was to survive.
3. Principle of intervention
The principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states alienated
Britain from the congress system and paved way for its demise. Britain
opposed this right from 1818 up to the end of the system, inspite of British
opposition, Austria, Prussia and Russia signed the Troppau protocol of 1820
in which they pledged to intervene militarily against revolutions. This drifted
Britain apart and Castlereagh branded the protocol "a destitute of
common sense". Britain opposed French intervention in Spain and withdrew
from the congress system at the congress of Verona. This was the last kick to down fall of the congress system.4. The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was yet another blow to the existence of the congress
system. In Dec 1823, president Monroe of U.S.A proclaimed the doctrine
which threatened war against the planned move by the congress powers
to restore Spanish colonies in South America. He was supported by George
Canning of Britain who was afraid that such a move would undermine British
trade with South American colonies. It defeated the principle of
intervention and forced Austria, Prussia, France and Russia to back down.
Henceforth, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 created more antagonism
between Britain against other congress powers, thus rolling the congress
system to its grave.
5. The Vienna Settlement
The Vienna settlement laid a very weak foundation for the congress system
that made its collapse a foregone conclusion. The congress system was to
maintain the Vienna settlement, which unfortunately had enforced very
unrealistic principles. These were for instance, the principles of legitimacy,
balance of power and defensive arrangements against the principle of
nationalism. It should be stressed that the principle of legitimacy made the
Vienna peacemakers to restore some of the worst rulers Europe ever had.
This created a viscous cycle of revolts like against Ferdinand I of Naples and
Ferdinand VII of Spain. These revolts created more conflicts and
antagonism amongst the congress powers. This is because other powers
preferred intervention which was bitterly opposed by Britain. The end result
was the end of the congress system.
6. Discrimination against small states
Discrimination against small states was a fundamental, weakness that led
to the downfall of the congress system. It was dominated by the "big^ five"
at the expense of smaller states yet they would have reduced the
differences between the big powers. Consequently, the system failed to
capture European public opinion and no wonder that it was branded "a
league of despots" for the suppression of revolutions and nationalism in the
smaller states. The congress system therefore became a narrow association
of the big powers against smaller states which met stiff opposition from the
smaller states hence its collapse.
7. Lack of Experience
Inexperience also accounts for the disintegration of the congress system.
The system was the first international organization that was designed tomaintain peace. The congress powers therefore lacked experience from
any previous attempts from which it could have learnt lessons and avoided
various weaknesses that made the system to collapse. This partly explains
why the congressmen tried to rewind Europe to the pre 1789 order that
became a total disaster. It should be noted that the League of Nations and
the U.N.O learnt lessons from previous organizations and this partly explains
why they existed for so long. The congress system was experimental or on
trial and error and no wonder that it collapsed within less than 10 years.
8. Lack of clear principles and protocol
The congress system failed partly because it was a disorganized
organization with no clear principles and protocol. There was no
memorandum on how meetings were to be called, where, when and the
procedure to be followed in such meetings. There was even no fixed
chairperson and this explains why anybody could call a congress anytime.
Besides, there was no penalty for those who would wish to withdraw and
this explains why Britain easily pulled out of the system in 1820.
9. Lack of a joint army and a resolution enforcing organ
The congress system was doomed by its failure to organize a governing
body and "a congress peace keeping force" to implement its resolutions.
Besides, there was no court of justice that could have punished those who
violated the objectives of the system. For instance, France, Britain and
Russia who diverted and supported liberal and nationalistic movements like
in Greece would have been brought to book. If the court of justice was
there, it could have saved the concert of Europe from disintegration
through strict enforcement to the norms and principles of the congress
system. Similarly, a joint force would have enforced the resolutions of the
congress system where diplomacy could not be viable. The absence of a
joint force undermined the strength of the congress system and made it
more theoretical than practical which accounted for its collapse.
10. The Greek war of Independence.
The Greek war of independence was the last blow to the existence of the
congress system. The Greeks revolted demanding for their independence
against Turkey. The war became an event amongst others where the
divergent interest of the major powers converged and hastened the
collapse of the congress system. It divided the congress powers into two i.e.
Britain, France and Russia who supported the Greeks and Prussia and
Austria who sympathized and hence supported Turkey. In 1827, Russia,Britain and France signed the London treaty that recognized the
independence of Greece amidst protest from Austria and Prussia. This gave
the congress system that had died in 1825 unceremonial burial.
11. Death of founder members and the rise/role of new men.
The Death of some of the pioneers of the congress system and the rise of
new men without parental care for the system was a serious setback for the
survival of the system. Castlereagh died a suicidal death in 1822 and was
replaced by George Canning. George Canning unlike Castlereagh was
too aggressive and uncooperative to the ideas of collective action. He
refused to neither attend nor send a representative to the 1823 congress
over Spanish colonies and the 1825 congress over the Greek war of
independence. This frustrated diplomatic solutions to the revolts and left it
for a violent solution that divided the powers. It was the same Canning who
withdrew Britain from the congress system in 1825 and embarked on a
policy of "every nation for itself and God for us all". This individualistic
tendency did not spare the congress system.
In Russia, Tsar Alexander I died inl825 and was replaced by Tsar Nicholas II.
Tsar Nicholas II had a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy over
the Balkans. He was too confident in Russia's military might that he felt
insulted to be restrained in foreign ventures. Nicholas' imperialistic ambitions
made Britain and France to turn round and support liberal movements such
as the Greek revolt. This was against the norms and principles of the
congress system and betrayed the system to doom.
In France, Charles X succeeded Louis XVHI in 1824, Unlike Louis XVIII, Charles
X was pro-British and very often against Metternich. He consistently co-
operated with George Canning like in the Greek war that left Metternich
isolated and annoyed.
All in all, George Canning, Tsar Nicholas I and Charles X carried the
congress system to its final rest because unlike the founders, they had no
parental fondness and love for it. They had not participated in its formation
and its existence meant little to them. Unlike Metternich, the new leaders
were inexperienced and had a narrow/limited knowledge of European
affairs prior to and after the congress system.
12. The British policy of Isolationism and non Intervention
Britain was primarily responsible for the downfall of the congress system. She
pursued a policy of Isolation (non-interventionist foreign policy). This was toavoid pocket touching matters (unnecessary expenses), loss of British
citizens in areas of no interest and parliamentary outcry incase of failures.
These made Britain/Castlereagh to veto important congress revolutions like
checking pirates on the Mediterranean Sea and the formation of a joint
force right from Aix-Lachapalle in 1818. This was very unfortunate for the
congress system because it was Britain who championed the defeat of
Napoleon I.
Her role was therefore paramount in the reconstruction of post Napoleonic
era and the survival of the congress system thereafter.
Secondly, Britain sympathized and offered moral and logistical support to
liberal and nationalistic movements like in Spain, Naples, Greece, German
and Italian states. This was against the principles and interest of the
congress system. Indeed, the British official policy was made clear by
Castlereagh in his lengthy State paper, thus;
……………Britain owed her present dynasty and constitution to an internal
revolution. She could not therefore deny to other countries the same
right of changing their form of government (Grant and Temperleys pp/142
- 143).
Britain therefore opposed the idea of suppressing revolutions right from Aix-
Lachapalle. This is why she rejected the Troppau protocol which
Castlereagh called "a destitute of common sense". This drifted Britain a part
from Russia, Austria and Prussia hence the collapse of the congress system.
Thirdly, Britain allied with U.S.A. against Austria, Russia and Prussia over the
issue of Spanish colonies.
She overwhelmingly supported the Monroe doctrine against other powers
who wanted to intervene over the issue of Spanish colonies. This left the rest
of the congress powers hopeless and defeated the principle of
intervention.
Fourthly, it was Britain through Canning (the British foreign secretary from
1822) who "killed" the congress system. Britain declined to send a
representative to a congress that was called by the Spanish king over the
Spanish colonies. She also refused to attend the congress of St. Petersburg
that was called by Tsar Nicholas 1 to settle the Greek war of independence.
This frustrated Russian's intentions to diplomatically settle the Greek question.Fifthly, it was Britain who officially withdrew from the congress system in 1823.
George Canning was angered by the French intervention in Spain and
withdrew British membership of the congress system at the congress of
Verona. Thereafter, Britain under Canning resorted to the policy of every
nation for itself and God for us all''. This was the actual disintegration of the
congress system.
Lastly, Britain had profound hatred and dislike for Russia and Austria. She
hated Russia for her imperialism over the Balkans and the Mediterranean
Sea, which was a threat to her commercial interest.
She was against Austria because Austria and Metternich had centralized
European affairs in their favour.
Canning wanted European affairs to be centralized and settled in London
than Vienna or Austria. In other wards Britain wanted to hijack the balance
of power to favour her. Therefore, one can safely conclude that Britain's
hatred for Russia and Austria robbed the congress powers of any
harmonious relationship or mutual co-existence and led to its collapse.Readmore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Effect of 1830 Revolution on Euroupe during the reign.
The 1830 revolutions had positive and negative effects on the political, social and economic developments of Europe. Some of its effects w...
-
1) Britain (Lord Stewart Castlereagh and George Canning) I) Britain was primarily responsible for the collapse of the congress system. She...
-
The 1830 revolutions had positive and negative effects on the political, social and economic developments of Europe. Some of its effects w...
-
1. King Louis XVIII was less despotic. He maintained a parliamentary system of government and tried to abide by the provisions of the cons...
